# Stealth in Combat



## Xorn (Jun 10, 2008)

I don't like the Stealth mechanics in combat; mainly because there is no reason _not_ to stealth if you have cover/concealment.  Especially a character like a rogue, trained in stealth with 18 DEX (+9 Stealth).  Use a hand crossbow from behind (a crate), then use Stealth to hide behind the cover.  If you make the opposed check, you are now hidden.

Stealth specifically states "You have combat advantage against a target that isn't aware of you.", and because of that in my opinion you can become hidden in cover/concealment (giving you total concealment now), but the enemy is still aware of you, so you get no Combat Advantage, as far as I'm concerned.

The problem I have again--is why would you NOT make a stealth check when in cover/concealment?  If you make the opposed check, you have Total Concealment, and if you fail it, at least you have Cover.  As there is no downside to the check, it's just extra die rolls, really.

I can see this as two cowboys hiding behind water troughs I guess, each one popping up and trying to duck back down before the other returns fire.  Eventually one fails their Stealth roll and the other gets a good shot at them.

But it's extra dice rolls every single turn, and that's so... _not_ like 4E.  The reason Concealment doesn't give a miss chance now is that it was extra rolling!


----------



## Xorn (Jun 10, 2008)

I suppose the counter is the Ready action.  You stealth behind a wall, ready an action to attack that person the next time I see them.  Next time they attack they reveal themself, and then the immediate reaction occurs, before they can hide again.

It doesn't solve the problem of every time anyone has cover/concealment, they should make a stealth roll to hide behind it.  :/


----------



## cferejohn (Jun 10, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> The problem I have again--is why would you NOT make a stealth check when in cover/concealment?  If you make the opposed check, you have Total Concealment, and if you fail it, at least you have Cover.  As there is no downside to the check, it's just extra die rolls, really.[/q]
> 
> There is no downside to making an attack either. More to the point, there is no downside to a Ranger marking someone as quarry and it always succeeds. I was leery of this as well, but I find that it makes the rogue a legitimate ranged threat. And really, flanking is still better because it always works (and also most of the Rogue's powers involve melee attacks.
> 
> ...


----------



## Surgoshan (Jun 10, 2008)

Yeah, stealth is helpful.  But it's not a guarantee.  If the opponent's perception check beats your stealth check (free action when you stealth), then your stealth didn't avail you.  And if it doesn't beat it, then he can use a minor action to make another and try again.  So it's helpful, but it has limits.

A paladin in full plate with no stealth bonus or training isn't going to try stealthing because he'll have 0 bonus from dex (unless he put points into dex for some reason) and he'll have a pretty hefty armor check penalty (-4 if he has a heavy shield).  Whereas many mobs have quite a good bonus to perception.

The rogue, on the other hand, wants combat advantage so he'll be trying for stealth all the time.  It works without being broken.

I'm pretty sure that cutting down on dice rolls was a secondary or even tertiary goal.  What they were really trying for was cutting down on broken stuff.  Say you need an 18 to hit someone and then he gains cover.  In 3.5, now your chance to hit him is cut down to an insignificant fraction.  Now you just need a natural 20, and a wizard's area burst/blast doesn't even need that.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Jun 10, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> But it's extra dice rolls every single turn, and that's so... _not_ like 4E.  The reason Concealment doesn't give a miss chance now is that it was extra rolling!




In actual play, the hide to gain combat advantage playstyle doesn't take any longer than any other character.

Realistically though, why should any ranged combatant stand in the middle of the room when he could take advanage of cover?  Only a few people are gonna be good at it, but everyone should be doing this as a matter of course unless they need to be up close and personal to do their jobs.

In actual play, the Stealth rules are fast and doesn't really give any unfair advantage to any side.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 10, 2008)

I expect ranged attackers to be in cover.  I have no problem with it--I encourage it.

It's the idea of using Stealth to hide behind said cover every single turn, after you are visible.  You attack, then you hide behind the cover.  If you fail the opposed roll, you still have cover.  If you make the opposed roll, you now have Total Concealment, and then if the attacker tries during the next turn... there's an opposed check vs every enemy that can see they person trying to hide, plus another check for every enemy that failed the first time, PLUS this applies to every single person using cover.  So the rogue, the ranger, the slinger, the wyrmpriest... now I'm just rolling a stupid amount of dice every single round.  Even the fighter in plate mail with a heavy shield SHOULD roll stealth if he can't reach melee but can reach cover.  There's nothing to lose if he fails it, and everything to gain.

I've had PLENTY of actual play experience, and I'm tired of rolling dice to deal with Stealth.  I roll as many dice for stealth as all other combat rolls _combined_.  That's F'd up.

I've found my solution though.  It's pretty simple.  Bluff states that you can create a distraction in combat to Hide.  Success on Stealth reads, "You *avoid* notice, unheard and hidden from view.  If you later attack or shout, you're no longer hidden." (Emphasis mine.)

You can't _avoid_ notice after you have already been noticed.  You need to either use a Distraction (via Bluff in combat) or you can't "re-hide".  Now if you can achieve Total Cover/Concealment, then your Stealth determines if your enemy's can figure out where to attack, and if they fail to even determine a direction, I'll allow stealth through normal cover/concealment again, but once you have been noticed, Stealth only _avoids_ notice, it doesn't erase it.

You need a distraction (Bluff) or total cover/concealment to be hidden again.

EDIT - Thanks Samursus, fixed that.


----------



## samursus (Jun 10, 2008)

"You can*'t* avoid notice after you have already been noticed. You need to either use a Distraction (via Bluff in combat) or you can't "re-hide". Now if you can achieve Total Cover/Concealment, then your Stealth determines if your enemy's can figure out where to attack, and if they fail to even determine a direction, I'll allow stealth through normal cover/concealment again, but once you have been noticed, Stealth only avoids notice, it doesn't erase it."



Boldface mine (I assumed thats what you meant)

This way makes sense to me...I have been puzzling over the Stealth rules myself, trying to make it work for me (DM) and my players.  Your interpretation matches mine.


----------



## Folly (Jun 11, 2008)

I personally like how the new Stealth rules. When I first read how you were running stealth it sounded wrong from how I read it. So I went back and checked the text again. The only roll that has to be made is the one by the person using stealth. All others use their passive check.

The Passive check sections states:
"When you’re not *actively* using a skill, you’re assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill...." PG 179

In the Perception skill description(inside the box):
"No action required—either you notice something or you don’t. Your DM usually uses your passive Perception check result. If you want to use the skill *actively*, you need to take a standard action or..." PG 186

Thus you have to use a standard action to roll a perception roll against someone using stealth. 

I have found in my play experience that the stealth goes rather quickly and hardly disrupts game flow.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 11, 2008)

I'll bet my way (which recognizes that Stealth _avoids_ notice, not removes it) still plays faster.

And it's not a passive check if the target is LOOKING at you when you try to hide (Opposed Checks).  It would then be your active vs their active.  If you succeed in hiding, then you would roll your active at the end of the turn vs their passive.  Then on their turn for a minor they would roll their active vs your last roll to see if they can get a hint to where you are.  (Targeting What You Can't See).

I have a rogue and ranger stealthing behind cover, and a pair of slingers doing the same across the room.  So on the rogues turn, that's one roll vs five enemy rolls, plus any that he hid from make active checks (for a minor action) on their turn.  If he hides half the time (unlikely, he'll probably hide from all of them, look at kobold perception) then each will make an active check on their turn (so they can call it out as a free action).  So that's 11 rolls, for the rogue.  Then 11 more for the ranger.  The slingers, doing the same thing, will generate a minimum of 6 rolls (their roll vs 5 characters) and since it's likely the kobolds will at least hide from the non-perception trained people, probably 3 more rolls each during the player turns.

Roughly 40 rolls.  In a round.

Yeah.  No thanks.  Stealth _avoids_ notice.  If it was supposed to immediately hide you when someone is looking at you, it would read, "You BECOME hidden."

It allows you to REMAIN hidden.  Have to be hidden first, though.

What you're describing is playing hide-n-seek in the living room, but the person counting doesn't close their eyes.  But if you want to run stealth like that, knock yourself out.

It's just like the thread on DDI, where a customer service rep said that if you have cover/concealment, you can roll stealth and sneak attack immediately.  (He called it stealthily attacking--that's right, stealthily doing something that breaks stealth.)

That means most 1st level rogues will sneak attack 95% of the time from range against kobolds, every round.  Why bother making them check?  Why not just say if you are adjacent to cover you get to sneak attack anyone you like?


----------



## Tsuul (Jun 11, 2008)

So I can pop out from my rock and shoot you and gain sneak attack damage.
Your defense is to ready an action to shoot me when I pop out, but if I survive, technically I still get to hit you with sneak attack damage???
You know, 'cause you are granting me Combat Advantage still for some stupid reason.


----------



## NMcCoy (Jun 11, 2008)

Readying doesn't interrupt anymore - you get hit by the Sneak Attack and then get to counterattack.

Also, keep in mind that unless you move (which carries a penalty to Stealth if it's more than two squares) they know what square you're in and can attack it at a -5 penalty (or no penalty at all if it's a Close or Area attack).


----------



## Surgoshan (Jun 11, 2008)

Scenario 1
You watch as I run into a stand of trees and brush, 20'x20'.  You know where I am, generally, but can no longer see me.  You fire off an arrow and, by chance, hit me.

In this case, I made a stealth roll, you failed to beat it.  You then attacked at -5 and hit.

Scenario B
I jump over a low stone wall and duck down, you keep a sharp eye through cracks and holes in the wall and spot me.  You then arc an arrow up and over, and hit me.

Your opposed perception check beat my stealth roll, you knew where I was, you nailed me at -2.

Scenario Two and a Half
Invisible Jim run across the battlefield.  Thog rolls his eyes and cuts Jim's head off.

Jim moved more than two squares, took a penalty to his stealth roll, Thog pinpointed him and nailed a critical hit.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 11, 2008)

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> Scenario 1
> You watch as I run into a stand of trees and brush, 20'x20'.  You know where I am, generally, but can no longer see me.  You fire off an arrow and, by chance, hit me.
> 
> In this case, I made a stealth roll, you failed to beat it.  You then attacked at -5 and hit.




If you ran very deep into the trees and brush, it's total concealment, so yes, you're hidden and I can't see you.  I can't see you, but I have line of effect still.  I guess a square (the stealth vs perception determines if I get clues to my guess) and I attack with -5 to hit.



> Scenario B
> I jump over a low stone wall and duck down, you keep a sharp eye through cracks and holes in the wall and spot me.  You then arc an arrow up and over, and hit me.
> 
> Your opposed perception check beat my stealth roll, you knew where I was, you nailed me at -2.




You only jumped behind cover.  No stealth check involved as you can't _avoid_ notice--I've already noticed you.  I shoot through a hole in the cover, -2 to hit.



> Scenario Two and a Half
> Invisible Jim run across the battlefield.  Thog rolls his eyes and cuts Jim's head off.
> 
> Jim moved more than two squares, took a penalty to his stealth roll, Thog pinpointed him and nailed a critical hit.




Invisible Jim did not use (or failed at) his Bluff check, and was unable to use Stealth to become hidden via a distraction.  An undistracted Thog is very dangerous.

Every time someone says stealth makes you hidden when you weren't hidden before is adding words to the book.  Read "Success" under stealth.  It's very clear language, I can't believe I didn't notice it beforehand.


----------



## Oni (Jun 11, 2008)

Is sneak attack OP with the rules as written?  Would changing them noticably reduce the power of the rogue class?  

I don't know the answers to these questions, as I haven't seen the books yet, but I gather that rogues as strikers are entirely dependent on their sneak attack to do any kind of signficant damage.


----------



## Vaeron (Jun 11, 2008)

This is what passive perception for.  It's essentially taking ten.  That's the average of what the person would get if they rolled 100 perception checks or so.  Ex: my 1st level rogue has a passive perception of 17.  If he rolled a d20 and added his perception modifier, on average he would get a 17.

The whole point of passive perception is to use that instead of having to roll all the time.  You're making things a lot harder than they need to be.


----------



## Tsuul (Jun 11, 2008)

NMcCoy said:
			
		

> Readying doesn't interrupt anymore - you get hit by the Sneak Attack and then get to counterattack.



And if the ready action is for "the rogue popping out from behind the wall" instead of "getting attacked by the hidden guy"? He is, after all, in plain sight when he makes the attack.


----------



## NMcCoy (Jun 11, 2008)

It's one action - attacking is what unhides you. The only exemption for readying for part of an action is movement.


----------



## BlackTiger (Jun 11, 2008)

One minor point - Is giving the Rogue those damage dice for sneak attack often a problem?

Look at the other striker, the Ranger. Compare them to a Rogue, and you'll see that they don't *need* combat advantage to dish out crazy damage. be the closest guy to your enemy, and you have an at-will that can deal 2d10 + 1d6 damage from looong range. A rogue is limited to what, D6 weapons because of light blades. So, Sly Flourish + sneak is 3d6 + dex + cha (Although that can be as high as 7, granted.)

I played a game with 2 rangers, 2 wizards, and a paladin. Man, I wanted the rogue back. Sure, they have to make some skill checks, but making it easy to get combat advantage isn't a bad thing altogether for a striker.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 11, 2008)

BlackTiger said:
			
		

> One minor point - Is giving the Rogue those damage dice for sneak attack often a problem?
> 
> Look at the other striker, the Ranger. Compare them to a Rogue, and you'll see that they don't *need* combat advantage to dish out crazy damage. be the closest guy to your enemy, and you have an at-will that can deal 2d10 + 1d6 damage from looong range. A rogue is limited to what, D6 weapons because of light blades. So, Sly Flourish + sneak is 3d6 + dex + cha (Although that can be as high as 7, granted.)
> 
> I played a game with 2 rangers, 2 wizards, and a paladin. Man, I wanted the rogue back. Sure, they have to make some skill checks, but making it easy to get combat advantage isn't a bad thing altogether for a striker.




A melee rogue typically has combat advantage on every single attack he makes unless he can't be bothered to try for it (ie - minions). Defenders (and tons of other things) are really good for that.

So no, allowing a rogue to ROLL for combat advantage is not really unbalancing at all.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 11, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> But it's extra dice rolls every single turn, and that's so... _not_ like 4E.  The reason Concealment doesn't give a miss chance now is that it was extra rolling!




Well, you could let the player use a static stealth skill, and, rather than rolling each turn, set the DC at Skill+10.  Then the enemy uses its active perception to spot him (as a free action, not a standard).

The player would just say, "stealth mode," and the DM would roll only when a creature actually tries to look for the PC.


Or if you _really _wanted to streamline it, you could use passive stealth (take 10) versus passive perception and only let the player actively roll for stealth X times an encounter or w/a minor action or some other limitation.


----------



## Wepfmokk (Jun 11, 2008)

I was thinking about this one too. The rules are complicated and cumbersome to use during combat. Im trying Xorns interpretation in my next session as dm.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 11, 2008)

If you're going to give a ranger 2d10 in your comparison (is he level 21 or something!?) then the rogue's weapon is doing 2[W], as well, and his Sneak Attack is doing 5d6, versus Hunter's Quarry doing 3d6.

Bluff allows you to roll for combat advantage once.  Yet Stealth is going to let me roll for (and succeed 95% of the time) every round?  I think not.

I'm quite comfortable with what I'm reading--a successful stealth avoids notice.  It's very clear language.  If you've already been noticed, a success doesn't change that.


----------



## Xect (Jun 11, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> If you're going to give a ranger 2d10 in your comparison (is he level 21 or something!?)




Twin strike is an at-will ability.

But I don't see why the rogue would roll against each enemy. It's only the one he's attacking that matters. After all, everyone knows where he is an instant later.

So I'd have the rogue roll stealth against perception when he attacks from cover (if those two dice rolls are a problem, use passive perception with a sligtht bonus to offset the rogues benefit of reduced randomness. I haven't crunched the numbers). And then I'd have a blast with the tactical implications of having enemies try to position themselves so he had to move more than two squares before attacking them. I guess that would amount to about as many sneak attacks as a melee rogue gets.

He could of cause just take fleeting ghost at level 2. But hey, if a character takes a power to do something, it should be cool.


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 11, 2008)

I'm surprised Xorn didn't catch that as we had this debate just the other day.

Technically it's 2d10 +1d6 from hunter's quarry.

However!

The odds of having both attacks land is something like 30%.  I'm not a number cruncher but I'm sure Xorn could hammer out the exact numbers.

Rogue would be 3d6+Dex let's assume 4 dex as typical.

Ranger average damage assuming both attacks land: 14.5 damage. (14-15 damage range.)

Rogue average ranged damage assuming one attack lands: 14.5 damage. (14-15 damage range.)

So the odds of the ranger getting this insane damage making two attack rolls is considerably less than the Rogue with Combat advantage making one attack.  Something in the neighborhood of one out of every three standard actions landing both attacks.

Edit: So with that in mind average damage over 3 rounds using twin strike for a Ranger: 32.5 damage

Average damage for a rogue over 3 rounds: 43.5 damage.


----------



## Folly (Jun 11, 2008)

Dup post


----------



## Folly (Jun 11, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> And it's not a passive check if the target is LOOKING at you when you try to hide (Opposed Checks).




I was not commenting on the nature of the notice aspect or not. I was simple stating that as the rules are written the only time you are actively using perception is when you use a standard action, and the only time you do not use passive perception is when you are actively using perception. Thus the only time the perceiver rolls is when they take an action to do so. 

As a side note, I am only bringing up the rules for in combat. Outside of combat their are additional rules for getting a check.

This means that using stealth requires only one roll from the table.


----------



## Harr (Jun 11, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> If you're going to give a ranger 2d10 in your comparison (is he level 21 or something!?) then the rogue's weapon is doing 2[W], as well, and his Sneak Attack is doing 5d6, versus Hunter's Quarry doing 3d6.




Ranger level 1 using a longbow with Twin Strike and Hunters Quarry does 2d10+1d6 damage. Every round. No stealth check.

Warlock level 1 with optimized Cha and Warlock's Curse does 1d10 +5 + 1d6 damage. Every round. No stealth check.

The 'perfect balance' to be achieved would be to come to some sort of balance where the rogue gets his +2d6 damage from combat advantage every other round on average.

And this is easily arrived at by saying when you attack from hiding, you lose your hiding and can't hide again for one round. Like you propose, attacking makes people 'notice' you, but that 'noticed' state only lasts until you've had some time to move around and the target has had to focus back on the combat in general; which is to say, the end of your next turn.

This seems fair to me 

*Edit ->* This is assuming that the Rogue's stealth is good enough to alomst always trounce the target's perception - which, at least all through KotS, it always is... everything in there has a whopping +1 or +3 perception, with the great exceptions being elites with +5 or something, while our rogue is running around with +12-14. Easy.


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 11, 2008)

Harr said:
			
		

> Ranger level 1 using a longbow with Twin Strike and Hunters Quarry does 2d10+1d6 damage. Every round. No stealth check.
> 
> Warlock level 1 with optimized Cha and Warlock's Curse does 1d10 +5 + 1d6 damage. Every round. No stealth check.
> 
> ...




This isn't an accurate assessment.

The Warlock can target the monsters lowest defense which will cause them to hit more often than the rest of the party.  With the higher hit chance in mind you can't just state the weapon damage as over all they'll be doing more damage than what the flat numbers shown.  However this is offset by the fact that a lot of monsters have a much higher save to reflex thant hey do will.  So the Warlock often times may find it more beneficial to use the lower damage attack. (Such as when fighting Kobolds for example.)

The Ranger targets only AC and they'll be missing more and the second attack will hit only one out of every three twin strikes. (Roughly a 30% chance for both shots to hit.)

The Rogue would make only one attack and leave the other two behind considerably in over all damage with sneak attacks nearly every round.

They can get sneak attacks frequently as it is but what you guys are proposing is removing the risk from the reward.

Melee combat you have a higher chance of taking damage.  Combat advantage and sneak attacks should offset this so that the risk of being hit by more close burst or melee attacks are offset by the fact that you're doing more damage.

What you guys are suggesting is making it so that a Rogue can attack safely from range with sneak attacks pretty much every single round and have almost no chance of taking any damage.  It just goes against common sense.

If you can just stealth all the time and have almost complete safety at range why would any Rogue in their right mind ever go into melee range?

The Warlocks average damage per round is 13 in the best situation where the creature has low reflex.   Frequently it will be better for them to use eyebite as it focus's on the Will save which typically is one of the lowest saves.


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 11, 2008)

duplicate post


----------



## Arbitrary (Jun 11, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> I was not commenting on the nature of the notice aspect or not. I was simple stating that as the rules are written the only time you are actively using perception is when you use a standard action, and the only time you do not use passive perception is when you are actively using perception. Thus the only time the perceiver rolls is when they take an action to do so.
> 
> As a side note, I am only bringing up the rules for in combat. Outside of combat their are additional rules for getting a check.
> 
> This means that using stealth requires only one roll from the table.




The rules as written.  Ok.

Opposed Checks, page 178

Sometimes you make a skill check as a test of your skill in one area against another character's skill in the same area or in a different one.  When you use Stealth, for example, you're testing your ability to hide against someone else's ability to spot hidden things (the Perception skill).  These skill contests are called opposed checks.  When you make an opposed check, both characters roll, and the higher check result wins.  

Stealth, page 188

Opposed Check:  Stealth vs. Perception (see the table for modifiers to your check).  If there are multiple observers, your stealth check is opposed by each observer's Perception check.  

------------

It's perfectly clear that each entity on the battlefield is to get a roll against the stealther.


----------



## Harr (Jun 11, 2008)

'Every other round' is nowhere even close to equating to 'nearly every round'. Try it in play.

And the rogue targets AC as well so that would make the Warlock automatically leave the both the Ranger AND the Rogue in the dust every round then? Seems we need another thread 

Anyway this here is how I actually run combat-stealth in my games (6 games run so far) and from and actual-play perspective it runs very, very well. I hadn't mentioned it because it's far from the streamlined 'no rolls' thing that Xorn seems to be trying towards.


----------



## Family (Jun 11, 2008)

*PHB Stealth in combat distilled.*

Bluff vs Passive Insight (static Wisdom+10) of each observer.
-Usable once per combat encounter.
-You can immediately make a Stealth check for observers you succeeded against.

Stealth vs Passive Perception (static Wisdom+10) of each observer. +2 vs observer(s) more than 10 squares away.
-Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily. [<--really?]
-You must have Cover or Concealment from each observer you are making a Stealth check against. You have to maintain Cover or Concealment to remain unnoticed.
-Success: You avoid notice; You gain Combat Advantage from each observer who you succeeded against.
-If you later attack or shout, you’re no longer hidden; moving requires a new roll.
-Observers can use Active Perception as a Standard Action.


----------



## entropysoda (Jun 11, 2008)

> And this is easily arrived at by saying when you attack from hiding, you lose your hiding and can't hide again for one round. Like you propose, attacking makes people 'notice' you, but that 'noticed' state only lasts until you've had some time to move around and the target has had to focus back on the combat in general; which is to say, the end of your next turn.




Assuming 20 in main stat...and no feats, and using at-will abilities only:
According to my calculations, the warlock is equal on average dam.(14) To rngr.
Rogue is better(15.5), but needs CA...
If Rogue was only able to hide ONLY every OTHER round, his average dam. Drops to 12.  So it's only worth being a rogue if u have CA EVERY round(or nearly so), so I thinks its reasonable they have a chance of doing this (as per RAW)…just "attack stealthily", it comes down to a stealth check they need to make every round.


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 11, 2008)

Harr said:
			
		

> 'Every other round' is nowhere even close to equating to 'nearly every round'. Try it in play.
> 
> And the rogue targets AC as well so that would make the Warlock automatically leave the both the Ranger AND the Rogue in the dust every round then? Seems we need another thread
> 
> Anyway this here is how I actually run combat-stealth in my games (6 games run so far) and from and actual-play perspective it runs very, very well. I hadn't mentioned it because it's far from the streamlined 'no rolls' thing that Xorn seems to be trying towards.




Show me how it's only half the time.  This number has been thrown out with nothing to support it.  Just because you say it's half doesn't make it so.  With deft strike you can move up to two squares to get line of sight sneak attack then move back behind cover and hide again.  With the logic every one is applying you could get sneak attacks nearly every round.  This is clearly blows away the "only half the time" mentality.  I say nearly every round because some times the monsters might detect him but most of the time the monsters won't. (As has been proven by math previously listed.)

Yes the Rogue targets AC as well but his damage is delt with one attack versus the Ranger dishing out the same damage spread out over two attacks.  With that in mind the Ranger will be doing half that damage 60% of the time.

That's not what I said, the Warlock isn't going to blow any one away in damage.   They will hit more reliably though however the other attacks do less damage so it will still average out and be balanced with the other classes.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 11, 2008)

Arbitrary said:
			
		

> The rules as written.  Ok.
> 
> Opposed Checks, page 178
> 
> ...




It also says under Passive Checks (page 179):

"When you’re not actively using a skill, you’re assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill. Passive checks are most commonly used for Perception checks and Insight checks..."

So you are making an opposed check, but it assumes you're taking 10 for your roll (effectively setting a DC of skill+10) if you aren't actively looking.  It also says taking 10 happens outside of an encounter, so there's some confusion there, but:

on Page 186, it says the DM usually uses the PCs passive perception check, an active check requires a standard action.

on Page 262, it says to use your passive perception check

and on Page 281, it says invisible creatures use their stealth vs your passive perception, and you can use a minor action to make an active perception check.

so, passive checks are clearly used in combat encounters.

***

From this, I think that the term Opposed Roll/Opposed Check includes both parties rolling, or one party rolling and one party taking 10 or using a passive skill, or possibly both using passive skill checks.  It's still "opposed" in that a failure for the active stealther means a success for the passive perceiver, not b/c it requires dice rolls from everyone.  

You don't need a hundred roll-offs if a rogue hides behind a bush from a squadron of passing orcs.


----------



## KidSnide (Jun 11, 2008)

ozziewolf said:
			
		

> Yes the Rogue targets AC as well but his damage is delt with one attack versus the Ranger dishing out the same damage spread out over two attacks.  With that in mind the Ranger will be doing half that damage 60% of the time.
> 
> That's not what I said, the Warlock isn't going to blow any one away in damage.   They will hit more reliably though however the other attacks do less damage so it will still average out and be balanced with the other classes.



The ranger does 1d10 instead of 2d10 60% of the time, but the damage from Hunter's Quarry takes place if either attack hits.  Plus, the ranger can choose to target two different minions, giving his attack a minor AoE-like effect.

The warlock also has the choice between his eldritch blast and his secondary power that does less damage, but provides some sort of useful rider effect.

Overall, it seems to me that the Rogue is balanced based on the assumption that he can get Sneak Attack damage almost every turn, provided the Rogue is willing to restrict himself some way - either by potentially risking exposing himself to attack with flanking, or by staying in cover and potentially limiting his ability to engage the whole battlefield.  (Noting that cover is also vulnerable to losing your sneak attack when an observant monster makes a lucky roll.)


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 11, 2008)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> The ranger does 1d10 instead of 2d10 60% of the time, but the damage from Hunter's Quarry takes place if either attack hits.  Plus, the ranger can choose to target two different minions, giving his attack a minor AoE-like effect.
> 
> The warlock also has the choice between his eldritch blast and his secondary power that does less damage, but provides some sort of useful rider effect.
> 
> Overall, it seems to me that the Rogue is balanced based on the assumption that he can get Sneak Attack damage almost every turn, provided the Rogue is willing to restrict himself some way - either by potentially risking exposing himself to attack with flanking, or by staying in cover and potentially limiting his ability to engage the whole battlefield.  (Noting that cover is also vulnerable to losing your sneak attack when an observant monster makes a lucky roll.)




Risking making a regular sneak attack versus a sneak attack isn't a risk at all when compared to getting a sneak attack and risk getting nailed.  Such as the young white dragon hitting you for 18 damage at level 1 when you could have safely stayed way back at range the entire fight getting sneak attacks with next to no risk.  So why risk taking massive damage if a Rogue can stay safely back at range sneak attacking with no risk of injury?


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 11, 2008)

Family said:
			
		

> Stealth vs Passive Perception (static Wisdom+10) of each observer. +2 vs observer(s) more than 10 squares away.
> -Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily. [<--really?]
> -You must have Cover or Concealment from each observer you are making a Stealth check against. You have to maintain Cover or Concealment to remain unnoticed.
> -Success: You avoid notice; You gain Combat Advantage from each observer who you succeeded against.
> ...




So, there is no reason NOT to do this every time you land on something that provides concealment or cover.  Everytime you duck behind a boulder, you might as well try to hide because there's nothing to lose and it costs no actions?  That would be incredibly annoying for everyone involved.

Anybody start playing KotS yet?  My party's been spending the whole friggen combat in concealment areas.  And why not?  They provide -2 to hit.  So now, I have to roll Stealth checks every round for every party member (assuming I'm going against passive Perception).  No way.

Not to mention the enemies would wind up doing the same stupid thing.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jun 11, 2008)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> You don't need a hundred roll-offs if a rogue hides behind a bush from a squadron of passing orcs.




I don't have a problem with using passive checks in that situation.  What I have a problem with is still using passive checks once combat starts and when every creature is assumed to be paying attention to its surroundings. 

Continuing to use passive Perception allows the stealther to not fear exceptional rolls against him and only needs to be able to beat 10 + their modifier to abuse an already dubious mechanic of attack/move/stealth/repeat.


----------



## fnwc (Jun 11, 2008)

Family said:
			
		

> -If you later attack or shout, you’re no longer hidden; moving requires a new roll.




I've been trying to figure out Stealth for some time now, and I mostly agree with what you've said. However, I didn't notice anywhere that says that moving requires a new roll, although there is a -5 penalty for moving more than 2 squares.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 11, 2008)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> It also says under Passive Checks (page 179):
> 
> "When you’re not actively using a skill, you’re assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill. Passive checks are most commonly used for Perception checks and Insight checks..."
> 
> So you are making an opposed check, but it assumes you're taking 10 for your roll (effectively setting a DC of skill+10) if you aren't actively looking.



By your logic, actual opposed checks never happen.

PHB definition of opposed check says both characters roll.
PHB definition of stealth says the Stealth check is an opposed check.
If actually rolling a Perception check takes a standard action, you can only do that on your turn.
Using Stealth is in most cases also only possible on your turn.

So under what circumstances does an opposed Stealth check - where the stealther initiates by making a Stealth check and the other creatures present roll Perception checks - actually happen?  If it's always against passive Perception, then the skill description would have just said that.  Passive checks make sense out of combat or when creatures are not aware of your presence, but when you just shot a guy with a crossbow, I think his interest in your location is no longer quite so lackadaisical.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 12, 2008)

Arbitrary said:
			
		

> I don't have a problem with using passive checks in that situation.  What I have a problem with is still using passive checks once combat starts and when every creature is assumed to be paying attention to its surroundings.
> 
> Continuing to use passive Perception allows the stealther to not fear exceptional rolls against him and only needs to be able to beat 10 + their modifier to abuse an already dubious mechanic of attack/move/stealth/repeat.




I guess it depends on if your problem is with rolling lots of dice, or the brokenness of stealth.  But it seems the designers intended for passive perception to be the default in stealth checks (in combat even), unless the creature spends an action looking for a hidden/invis enemy.

Whether stealth is broken, I don't know; I haven't played enough 4e to tell.  It gives CA, but that seems very easy to get, and sneak attack only applies to one attack/round.  It also requires lots of movement and clever use of terrain, which is one of the goals for this edition.


----------



## Dan'L (Jun 12, 2008)

Take a note from the first part of the Stealth breakdown:

"STEALTH: Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily."

Staying in one spot is not an action, cover or no.  So, popping up and down from behind a barrel isn't going to cut it.  The once-per-encounter Bluff distraction should be the only ready way (at first level)  to get a stealth roll without moving.

Attacking invalidates stealth, so you can't get a check on that, either.

Moving once you've ducked behind cover, say crawling along behind a wall to that spot over there that the baddies are maybe not watching, that's an action.  And success means that they're not watching where you're going to pop up, giving you CA.  (A nasty DM might not let the player know just which baddies failed or passed the Opposed check, too.)

-Dan'L


----------



## Xorn (Jun 12, 2008)

So I can tell you what the general response from the CSR was:

You may use a successful Bluff check, or cover or concealment to use Stealth to become hidden, thus gaining Combat Advantage as the target that can't see you.

When I expressed my concern that this generates 20-40 die rolls if you have 4 of 10 combatants have concealment/cover (for opposed stealth checks, plus targeting what you can't see checks), he agreed that it was a lot of extraneous rolling, and that reading "Success: You AVOID notice..." does not make you hidden once spotted was a great way to interpret the rules as written for that, and he would pass it along to the R&D team to consider for errata, because the number of dice rolls generated was an issue.

So basically, Rules As Intended allows you to become hidden with any form of cover/concealment.  Rules As Written is easily interpreted to not allow you to just Stealth to hide after you have been spotted.  You then need either a distraction or to truly get out of sight (total concealment/superior cover).

I'll be using my RAW interpretation.

Ozzie came up with another RAW way to handle it.  The DC of the Stealth check doesn't have to be opposed.  Instead the DM is free to set a DC of his own.  Like... setting the DC at 50.

Actually... hmmm.  If you try to stealth against someone that is paying attention to you, their perception check is a 20.  Why not?  They are looking right at you!

Maybe my first house rule.  Granted this still means the halfling rogue in my party will be able to hide in any cover/concealment over half the time he tries against a kobold.

EDIT
*Just to be clear:*
According to the customer service guy I spoke with on the phone, and the one that answered my email form--you may use stealth as part of an action to become hidden with a bluff, cover, or concealment.  It *is* an opposed check (active vs active) because the opponent is paying attention to you during combat.

That also means that against 5 enemies, it IS 6 die rolls per person that stealths.  So if 2 folks on each side are doing this, you're generating 24 die rolls to deal with stealth every round, not including "Targeting What You Can't See" perception checks, which could amount to up to 20 more rolls, every round.

I'm definitely going to use my interpretation.  If you want combat advantage get in there and flank.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jun 12, 2008)

I think the intent is to use passive Perception most of the time to speed things up and then to leave when to use actual rolls up to the DM.  

I consider a battlefield situation in which an attacker is trying to hide from his targets after making an attack from stealth to be one such situation.  You've got the fullest attention of your opponent and using passive Perception doesn't make any sense inside an encounter.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 12, 2008)

Dan'L said:
			
		

> Take a note from the first part of the Stealth breakdown:
> 
> "STEALTH: Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily."
> 
> ...




This is a good point too, Dan'L.

However, dropping Prone is just a minor action, and you could do that stealthily.  So each round, Stand Up (move), Attack w/ CA (standard), Drop Prone stealthily (minor).  (This also means you'll have Total Concealment, -5 to be hit, during the enemies' turns.)

I love a lot about 4th Edition, but I hate the Stealth mechanics.  I despise them, actually.  I have a hard time understanding how anyone could like using the mechanics the way they were supposedly intended.


----------



## Dan'L (Jun 12, 2008)

But when you stand up, it's another move, which would require another stealth action :/

Once standing, you have potentially given up cover or concealment, and then any creature that has unblocked line of sight can see you, losing your CA.  Before you attack.

And really, all that the initial stealth check would hide is the fact that you are prone.  Your location would still be known, and you wouldn't have CA, since the creature would be aware of you.

-Dan'L


----------



## Arbitrary (Jun 12, 2008)

So a pack of minions systematically wanders through the squares in the direction the person who was hiding went, and when they find the square they should be able to enter but can't, they surround it and stab it.

There.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 12, 2008)

Dan'L said:
			
		

> But when you stand up, it's another move, which would require another stealth action :/
> 
> Once standing, you have potentially given up cover or concealment, and then any creature that has unblocked line of sight can see you, losing your CA.  Before you attack.
> 
> ...




But you drop prone unnoticed, unheard, and hidden from view.  (According to a Success on Stealth.)  Target Can't See You = Combat Advantage.

I don't like it, but now knowing this is how Stealth is intended to work, I hate it.  Why would anyone use Bluff?  Or move into melee?  Or do anything but roll d20s all day.  I'm intended to make 24+ rolls because of stealth every round, great.

Yeah I'm sticking with my interpretation.  Stealth avoids notice, it doesn't undo notice.


----------



## KidSnide (Jun 12, 2008)

ozziewolf said:
			
		

> Risking making a regular sneak attack versus a sneak attack isn't a risk at all when compared to getting a sneak attack and risk getting nailed.  Such as the young white dragon hitting you for 18 damage at level 1 when you could have safely stayed way back at range the entire fight getting sneak attacks with next to no risk.  So why risk taking massive damage if a Rogue can stay safely back at range sneak attacking with no risk of injury?




Provided that:

1) There is available cover;
2) That cover, possibly in rough terrain doesn't leave you vulnerable to being isolated and ganked by some monster-soldier;
3) That cover is in range of the target, who can't just move out of range;
4) Your ranged weapon is as good as your melee weapon; and
5) You don't want to use any of your melee only powers,

...then I agree with you, there is little reason to close to melee becaused a ranged sneak attack, though spottable, keeps you safe from danger.


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 12, 2008)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> Provided that:
> 
> 1) There is available cover;
> 2) That cover, possibly in rough terrain doesn't leave you vulnerable to being isolated and ganked by some monster-soldier;
> ...




1.) 99.9% of the time there is always some sort of cover.
2.)Since your allies would be rushing towards the enemy they would have to first get around your front line much easier said than done and the odds of being isolated and ganked by monster soldiers is very slim. Especially since soldier types and the beefier ones would be the primary argets of your tanks.  In this situation it would almost always be a minion that reached you. (Not much of a problem to dispatch.)
3.) The range is 25 squares short of running away full out they will be in range at least 95% of the time.
4.) Shurikens 1d6 damage +3 weapon proficiencies. (Although these have something like one square shorter range than a crossbow.  Crossbow 1d6 damage +2 weapon proficiencies. Yes they are equal it's possible that you may get a nice melee weapon early on but that is only temporary until you find a nice ranged weapon.  So in short weapon type doesn't matter in terms of equality they're pretty much the same.
5.) *All* of your melee only powers do the same damage as your melee or ranged powers of the same at will, encounter, and daily power. 

I'm glad that we cleared that up and that you agree with me 100% on this.  It really means a lot to me that you saw things from my point of view and you can clearly understand just how bad it is.


----------



## KidSnide (Jun 12, 2008)

ozziewolf said:
			
		

> 1.) 99.9% of the time there is always some sort of cover.
> 2.)Since your allies would be rushing towards the enemy they would have to first get around your front line much easier said than done and the odds of being isolated and ganked by monster soldiers is very slim. Especially since soldier types and the beefier ones would be the primary argets of your tanks.  In this situation it would almost always be a minion that reached you. (Not much of a problem to dispatch.)
> 3.) The range is 25 squares short of running away full out they will be in range at least 95% of the time.
> 4.) Shurikens 1d6 damage +3 weapon proficiencies. (Although these have something like one square shorter range than a crossbow.  Crossbow 1d6 damage +2 weapon proficiencies. Yes they are equal it's possible that you may get a nice melee weapon early on but that is only temporary until you find a nice ranged weapon.  So in short weapon type doesn't matter in terms of equality they're pretty much the same.
> ...



Well, it looks like both your encounters and your magic item distribution are pretty different from those in my games.  Also, it seems like you *really like* flexible range-melee rogue builds to the exclusion of, IMO, some pretty cool and effective powers.

In any case, I think that making a stealthy sniper rogue into a viable build is a feature, and such a build does require the ability to re-hide in order to get sneak attack most rounds.  Ozzie's games apparently notwithstanding, there are other viable rogue strategies too.  So I see the main problem being that the RAW seems to require a bejillion dice rolls, and not a problem with the concept of rehiding itself.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 12, 2008)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> Well, it looks like both your encounters and your magic item distribution are pretty different from those in my games.  Also, it seems like you *really like* flexible range-melee rogue builds to the exclusion of, IMO, some pretty cool and effective powers.
> 
> In any case, I think that making a stealthy sniper rogue into a viable build is a feature, and such a build does require the ability to re-hide in order to get sneak attack most rounds.  Ozzie's games apparently notwithstanding, there are other viable rogue strategies too.  So I see the main problem being that the RAW seems to require a bejillion dice rolls, and not a problem with the concept of rehiding itself.




FYI, Ozzie hates the idea of it being so trivially easy to gain combat advantage through stealth during combat.

My questions now is--what on earth are you talking about with encounters and magic item distribution?  An encounter with 2 guard drakes, 4 kobold minions, and 2 slingers.  Pretty standard encounter... they couldn't get past the dwarf fighter and tiefling warlord.  Now Ozzie waded in and used melee (a dagger, actually) for d4+4+2d6.  Had he just sat behind a coffin, making stupid stealth checks every turn with a hand crossbow--he'd have been doing d6+4+2d6, and be at much less risk.  And he's not BUILT to be a ranged attacker.

And yes, I DM for Ozzy.  He's the one that initially pointed out the "_avoids_ notice" that I'm proposing to make stealth in combat NOT broken.


----------



## Eldorian (Jun 12, 2008)

I think the case can easily be made that the only perception rolls required in combat are those made with actions on the part of the perceiver.  In this case, minor actions, an exception to the normal rule of perception based on the combat chapter.  Yes, every character who is in cover or concealment can make a stealth check every round, but unless they're actually good at it, they're gonna have a hard time beating the passive perception of the enemies.  It makes sense, anyways.  If you're fighting with concealment or cover, you of course try to avoid enemy notice.  Just ask any real life soldier.

Also, I think you're being pedantic if you don't allow a character to use a move action to make a stealth check while he's in cover/concealment.  Moving within one's own square (hiding in your cover) is a move action you can make stealthily in my book.  He doesn't need to stand up sit down fight fight fight! in whichever order you think he's required.  Hell, if you insist... he could mouth something (a free action) stealthily.

I swear, sometimes discussing game mechanics on this board is like talking to cylons.  One of these days I'm gonna weed em out by tossing out a logic bomb.


----------



## Sanzuo (Jun 12, 2008)

While we're on the topic, here's an email I got from Customer Service:



			
				Sanzuo said:
			
		

> I am unclear about the appropriate use of the stealth skill, specifically in combat. The rule states that stealth may be "part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily." Does that include a standard action? Like part of using a power? My issue is in the following scenario:
> 
> Rogue is facing a hostile in a lightly wooded area. Everyone has concealment, but both combatants are staring right at each other. Because he has concealment, Rogue meets the criteria for using the stealth skill. So on his turn he throws a shuriken as a standard action, and at the same time rolls his stealth skill. Assuming the hostile fails his perception, the rogue effectively hides himself at the same time he attacks. Thus, giving himself combat advantage and sneak attack on the hostile. Even if you rule that he reveals himself in the attack, the rogue can repeat that action on his turn every time.
> 
> I can't find a rule that states you cannot hide from a creature that is aware of you or in combat. The only criteria for using the skill is having concealment or cover. In the above scenario, what's keeping the rogue from simply rolling a free stealth check every time he attacks? Is this what was intended?






			
				Customer Service Guy said:
			
		

> Let me give you a brief breakdown of the stealth skill. So let's use your scenario below:
> 
> *Rogue is facing a hostile in a lightly wooded area. Everyone has concealment, but both combatants are staring right at each other. Because he has concealment, Rogue meets the criteria for using the stealth skill.*
> 
> ...




A few things:



> This situation is valid for making a stealth roll in. You are 100% correct!
> ...Your hit would then be rolled with combat advantage because the stealth was already in effect at the time you did your attack.




It seems Xorn's observation that this is the way stealth is intended is also true according to this guy.



> He can't do this because you can't stealth as part of an attack action. The bottom line is that you can't do an action that would unstealth you AND stealth in the same action (that would include attacking, shouting, or anything the DM rules as invalidating the stealth roll) .




This is actually what my concern was about.  It seems the official ruling is consistent with most people's that you can't stealth as a part of an attack action.  My problem is, as I am looking at the book, I can't find anywhere where it mentions this fact.  So as written it's pretty unclear.



> Once the rogue has revealed himself from stealth via attack, he cannot restealth again unless he performs another "non attack" action *such as moving to a different set of cover/concealment and then making another successful stealth check.* Any enemy who perceives him using a Perception roll at the DC of his stealth roll will see him and thus negate Combat Advantage.




And here we have the root of the problem.  I think it's fine if the rogue is having to constantly shift and move to avoid being seen. It paints the picture of skilled sniper in my head.  The problem is the fact that stealth can be used as a part of any non-revealing action; standard, movement or minor.  

Depending on the group this can be interpreted a large number of different ways.  The way I see it intended, a rogue (or anybody) can sit in a single bush in the middle of a battlefield (how NOT to be seen) can pick his nose stealthily as a minor action and attack all day with combat advantage, whether or not he's surrounded by hostiles in melee.

Now I have a hard time believing R&D didn't playtest the sh..poop out of this, and I would think they truly believe this is balanced.  I'm not 100% sure as I've yet to play an actual game with the released rules.  So I'm willing to try it out and see how it goes.

When I try to think of it practically it's stupid, and the more I think of it the more I like Xorn's idea of rogues having to get total concealment or lose line of sight in order to effectively re-stealth.  Otherwise there's no reason not to make a sniper, and let's frigging face it, that role is intended for the ranger.

Edit:


			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> Also, I think you're being pedantic if you don't allow a character to use a move action to make a stealth check while he's in cover/concealment. Moving within one's own square (hiding in your cover) is a move action you can make stealthily in my book. He doesn't need to stand up sit down fight fight fight! in whichever order you think he's required. Hell, if you insist... he could mouth something (a free action) stealthily.




I think what you're saying here is that you agree with this logic.  I would have to say that I disagree utterly.

Yes, according to the game mechanics this is valid, but it doesn't mean that it isn't stupid.  If someone spots the sneaky guy and realizes he intends to do harm, all of the attention is going to be on that sneaky guy.  Sneaky guy shouldn't be able to escape notice simply because he farted with a +20 on his stealth check.  I believe if he wants to truly wants to hide in the middle of combat he ought to have to make some pretty clever maneuvers to get the enemies attention away from him.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 12, 2008)

Well if anything, I'm going to take credit for generating enough discussion on this to make sure every DM to read this thread now understands all the sides of the debate and knows where _they_ stand on the discussion.  I think we've hit pretty much every talking point that exists on this matter, and this last CSR response contradicts previous CSRs as well.  (Stating you can't stealth an attack action, while others specifically state you can.)  The CSR stating you have to move to another square of cover/concealment is at best errata, because the PHB makes absolutely no mention of this.

We do know that RAI (rules as intended) have been unanimous from CSRs--you can Stealth during combat to gain Combat Advantage, so I'm comfortable is saying that much of it is correct.  It's after they say that, when I replied, "So, you're saying you _want_ it to be that easy for a rogue to sneak attack from cover?"

As I have an almost OCD-ish desire to run the game as intended, I still have this hangup with waving my hand and highlighting "avoids notice" in my PHB and making that the rule.  Even if I just have them rolling against passive perception (removing the number of die rolls), the effort required to achieve combat advantage with Stealth in combat (by a trained person) will be absurdly easy.

Here's another headache I hadn't considered until now:  If a kobold slinger hides behind cover, and one of the characters doesn't see him (the rest do) then do I tell that person, you have to guess what square the slinger is in, because you can't see him there behind the coffins.

Playtest your Stealth rules, Wizards.

Man I would love for one of the R&D guys to pop in and say something, but I imagine they're working on some real errata.


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 12, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> I have OCD which causes a desire to run the game as intended.





I fixed it for you Xorn.

Just so you guys know I'm not flaming this is the guy who deleted a bunch of his WoW characters and remade them just so that the horde and alliance characters where seperated and alphabetical.

Also he can't have the volume on an odd number it has to be on an even number.

   

*cackles evily as he _Stealths_ off*


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 12, 2008)

Bump decause this part of the rules is seriously screwed up.  And I can only hope someone with more detailed knowledge of how this is supposed to play might take pity on us and see it.


----------



## KidSnide (Jun 13, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> My questions now is--what on earth are you talking about with encounters and magic item distribution?  An encounter with 2 guard drakes, 4 kobold minions, and 2 slingers.  Pretty standard encounter... they couldn't get past the dwarf fighter and tiefling warlord.




Regarding encounters, I was contesting Ozzie's assertion that there is good cover in short range 99% of the time and there are never that many soldiers.  A 2 brute, 2 artillery, 4 minion encounter is very well suited to the hide-and-snipe strategy, provided that your defenders are holding down the brutes and not closing with the artillery.  A 4 soldiers/brutes, 1 artillery/controller encounter is going to make it very hard for your defender(s) to prevent soldiers or brutes from closing with your party's rear.  

Regarding magic items distribution, Ozzier asserted that it was easy to always have a ranged weapon that is as good as your melee weapon.  That's true if you're a dagger rogue (in which case that range 5 can make life hard sometimes), but if you want to use a rapier, you're going to need a second ranged weapon.  Unless you have a very generous DM, having two good level-appropriate weapons is going to come at the cost of the armor or neck slot.



			
				Xorn said:
			
		

> Now Ozzie waded in and used melee (a dagger, actually) for d4+4+2d6.  Had he just sat behind a coffin, making stupid stealth checks every turn with a hand crossbow--he'd have been doing d6+4+2d6, and be at much less risk.  And he's not BUILT to be a ranged attacker.




Well, the dagger vs. hand crossbow isn't nearly so clear cut, since a dagger gives +3 proficiency (instead of +2 for the hand crossbox) and the rogue gets an extra +1 on top of that.  So, you are giving up +2 to hit so you can bump the 1d4 to a 1d6.  Of course, if you're using a dagger, you only have a range of 5/10.  In my KotS combats, the relevant melee was often more than 5 squares away from the best cover.  And, of course, you can't throw a rapier.

Also, IME, the defenders tend to go down pretty fast if they are taking all of the monster's attacks.  You can have a sniper rogue that was never meant to be in melee, but it's not like those attacks that otherwise would go against the melee-rogue just evaporate into nothingness.   

Also, I'm not convinced that a sniper rogue is unbalanced in comparison to an archer-ranger, particularly because a sniper build requires you to exclusive choose from the limited set of melee/ranged powers.  Ozzie notes that those powers do as much damage as the melee-only powers, but many of the best rider effects are in melee-only powers.

That all having been said, it is certainly strange that Sly Flourish works when the target is unaware of you and that Brutal Scoundrel works with a dex-based missile weapon.  And, obviously, rolling 24 d20s per round to resolves stealth is unacceptable.  However, the rules do not lead me to conclude that any sane rogue would spend all of his time sniping from the bushes.  Maybe the strategy is too good?  But it is hardly without its tradeoffs.


----------



## Harr (Jun 13, 2008)

ozziewolf said:
			
		

> Show me how it's only half the time.  This number has been thrown out with nothing to support it.  Just because you say it's half doesn't make it so.  With deft strike you can move up to two squares to get line of sight sneak attack then move back behind cover and hide again.  With the logic every one is applying you could get sneak attacks nearly every round.  This is clearly blows away the "only half the time" mentality.  I say nearly every round because some times the monsters might detect him but most of the time the monsters won't. (As has been proven by math previously listed.)
> 
> Yes the Rogue targets AC as well but his damage is delt with one attack versus the Ranger dishing out the same damage spread out over two attacks.  With that in mind the Ranger will be doing half that damage 60% of the time.
> 
> That's not what I said, the Warlock isn't going to blow any one away in damage.   They will hit more reliably though however the other attacks do less damage so it will still average out and be balanced with the other classes.




You really should read the link I gave you. It's a pretty good way of handling it (very good way IMHO). Is that maybe why you didn't comment on it at all? Focus less on 'winning an argument' and more on finding the solution.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

1) Not sure why people keep using the "duck behind a wall" example as the rogue cheatily getting cover . . . who needs walls when you have allies to hide behind? There's almost always a tank you can be partially behind that will give you the necessary cover to do your move/hide/hit with ranged sneak attack, move/hide/hit with ranged sneak attack. 

True, eventually the baddies may be able to simply walk up and attack . . . but between slightly difficult terrain/rain/fog/allies, early opportunity for cover or concealment will be there almost 99% of the time for the rogue with ranged attacks. 

2) Kobold rogues, with their shift-as-a-minor action, just became even cheatier . 

3) It's strong but perhaps not broken to be able to hide behind allies each round when doing ranged sneak-attacks. Can't say yet; the fact that there are generally more bad guys in 4E, and they do get to move around, makes it too early to say. It does seem very strong, but remember, if the rogue is doing that, he's not helping his fighter buddy flank, and 4E is not generous with the hit points . . . tanking is tougher in 4E than it was previously. 

However, it certainly strains credulity to be able to hide in melee, 5' from someone, simply because there's a pillar or small tree in your square. THAT needs to be errata'd immediately.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> Overall, it seems to me that the Rogue is balanced based on the assumption that he can get Sneak Attack damage almost every turn, provided the Rogue is willing to restrict himself some way - either by potentially risking exposing himself to attack with flanking, or by staying in cover and potentially limiting his ability to engage the whole battlefield.




A 2nd level melee goblin rogue sneak-attacking every turn is going to do around 3d8+Dex+7 damage (attacking vs AC) or 3d8+4 (attacking vs Reflex). [Assumes rapier + backstabber] If he can almost always do this from range w/shuriken, then it's a paltry 2d8+d6 +7 or +4 instead. I'm fairly confident that beats the Warlock's average damage output, and rapes the Ranger's. 

I approve of this, of course. There need to be more rogues, especially of the goblin and kobold variety .


----------



## Lucas Blackstone (Jun 13, 2008)

This is only partially related. When comparing ranger and rogue damage per round or battle or however they like to, have they been giving the ranger combat advantage also? It's not like Rangers don't have stealth in class also.

I fully support the way Wizards intends for stealth to work. I believe it's incredibly crucial for rogues to be able to maintain combat advantage or they begin to fail as a striker.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 13, 2008)

Stated by others before, but I'll repeat it--isn't the reason Sneak Attack adds more damage than the Warlock or Ranger damage increases because it's harder to get Combat Advantage?  Can anyone say (with a straight face) that it's harder to get combat advantage on pretty much any target you like with the current Stealth as intended?

Because if the closest monster to the ranger is a minion--guess what, a minion is going to eat an extra +d6.  (When possible, I will toss a minion closer than a standard+ creature to remove Quarry/Curse damage from the equation.)

As far as encounters--a dwarf fighter with a maul can deal out some pretty horrific punishment with a tiefling warlord next to him.

But back to Stealth, I just can't understand how the developers felt that the way they intended for Stealth to work is this way.  Ozzie (being the resident rogue in my group) has stated point blank that he's _glad_ I'm going with Stealth only _avoids_ notice--and he's the one with that really stands to gain from it!

Apparently anyone trained in Stealth can ignore cover--if they just find some cover!  (Combat Advantage offsetting enemy Cover).  But that's the bottom line for us... with Stealth as intended it's easier to gain Combat Advantage at range than it is in melee!

Percival Padfoot, the halfling rogue, currently has +12 Stealth.  That means that if he tries to hide in cover (say... behind the damned dwarf) his MINIMUM stealth is a 13.  The passive perception of a kobold slinger is 11.  That's right, it just can't see him.  He instantly gets Combat Advantage, he doesn't even have to roll.  Just put an ally between you and what you want to kill, and stealthily exploit the rules as intended.

"Where did the halfling that just killed Roger go!?"
"I don't know, Gary!  He ducked behind that dwarf, and now he could be anywhere!"

I'd like to restate, one last time:  Stealth as intended is the only thing I hate about 4th Edition.  But I really hate the  out of it.


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 13, 2008)

Harr said:
			
		

> You really should read the link I gave you. It's a pretty good way of handling it (very good way IMHO). Is that maybe why you didn't comment on it at all? Focus less on 'winning an argument' and more on finding the solution.




I was actually done posting in this thread but since I'm being called out...

You could also be less of a jerk and just ask if I didn't see it.  Focus less on personal attacks and more on logic and the matter at hand. I was posting at work at the time and actually over looked that part of the post, thanks for pointing it out though even thought it doesn't help your case at all as I will demonstrate below.  Logically intentionally skipping the parts of posts I didn't like would be a major tactical error as I would surely be called out on it.  (As your post as demonstrated.)  If I was really focused on "winning at the internets" I would have made sure and read everything carefully instead of missing something you said by accident.

Here is the quote in question in case any one else missed it.



> The key to this is that there is no "hide" action per se. You take a stealth check as part of an action that you want to do stealthily - usually a move action or a shift. I order to attempt this move stealthily, you must have cover at the moment you attempt the stealthy move or shift.
> 
> The warlock's shadow walk grants you concealment when you move 3 squares or more away from your start point. If you do not already have concealment before you start moving though, you cannot attempt to hide as part of that same move, because you needed the cover to make the attempt to begin with.
> 
> ...




Shadow Walk doesn't apply to what we're discussing so skipping that.

If you're referring to the part about you must have cover when you attempt to move... that is extremely easy to do every single round since when firing at range you ignore adjacent cover.  So technically you could just not move at all and use your move action to just make stealth checks from your current position with out moving.
If you're going to get snarky with me for not responding to something I didn't see at least make sure it's relevant to your case.  
That's not even getting in to the fact that doing it that way isn't RAW it's just an interpretation of how you could do it.  You do it as part of the move action no where does it state at what point during that action you have to have cover to get stealth.
So it's possible to deft strike out of cover sneak attack and then use your move action to get back into cover.
It's also possible to attack around a corner and then use your move action to stay hidden where you. Since you don't actually need to leave cover to get the attack.

Unless you can show me what page of the rule books says you have to be in cover at the start of the action to use the stealth check versus at the end of the action.

It's not about winning it's just about you being wrong and making comparisons or giving examples that are either completely made up or don't help your case.  
I've accepted that people can try to hide every round as long as they have cover per the rules as written and clarification through correspondence with WoTC.  I admit I was wrong in my interpretation of the rules as written on that matter.  Before I thought people where actually misreading the rules.
However you're trying to justify it by saying it's only possible to stealth every other round and I've proven time and again that just isn't the case.  This isn't a case of misinterpreting the rules in this situation as it was with making the stealth check.  It flat out doesn't say that you have to have cover at the start of your movement to make a stealth check.  It states you have to have cover to make a stealth check.  The rules are written as such that unless it specifically says otherwise then that is how it works.  So as long as you have cover as part of that move action you can make a stealth check.   This would include both at the start of the move or the end because otherwise it would specifically state that it had to be at the start of your turn.
The rule books are written as exception based rules.  They're ruled exactly how they're written unless the rules specifically states an exception.  No where in the book does it say anything about how you're trying to rule it.  There for it isn't how it works.

For now I'm done replying to this thread until some one can show me something in the rule books that actually counters my statement.  I highly doubt that will happen.  With my familiarity of the rules and having double checked just to be sure I wasn't saying anything that wasn't true as I'm sure if I did I would be called out on it. (Rightfully so if I'm stating misinformation.)

Edit: To clarify I'm not saying what you linked isn't a good idea.  It's just that right now we're discussing the rules as written.  There are a few ways this could be house ruled but that only addresses the issue on a personal level as opposed to game wide.

Second edit, oh my!: I realized I didn't address the actual skill use of bluff. 



> Create a Diversion to Hide: Once per combat
> encounter, you can create a diversion to hide. As
> a standard action, make a Bluff check opposed by
> the Insight check of an enemy that can see you (if
> ...




This just says you create a diversion to hide.  So if you succeed you can hide in place because they've suddenly become distracted and are no longer looking at you.   This would seemingly give you combat advantage until the end of your turn.  It would be a useful way to gain combat advantage at range in a situation where you couldn't find any cover at all.  I can see why you would want to rule it the way you did and for what it's worth it's not a bad idea.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 13, 2008)

Enemy | Enemy
Fighter | Warlord



Rogue | Empty

This rogue can move right one square "stealthily" and gain combat advantage.  Next round he can move left one square "stealthily" and gain combat advantage.  Against level appropriate foes, a rogue trained in stealth should have combat advantage almost every round, unless he does something silly, like try to wade into the melee.

The reason I dislike Stealth As Intended™ is because it feels like one of those "if you don't do this every turn you're shorting your character's potential" type of actions.


----------



## Surgoshan (Jun 13, 2008)

The rogue can only move back and forth stealthily gaining CA if the region he's moving about in provides cover or concealment.  And that's only going to happen if the DM puts down a tile with that stuff on it.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 13, 2008)

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> The rogue can only move back and forth stealthily gaining CA if the region he's moving about in provides cover or concealment.  And that's only going to happen if the DM puts down a tile with that stuff on it.




The fighter and warlord are providing cover.  Welcome to Stealth As Intended™.  Remember, the rogue isn't invisible, he's just being really sneaky behind the dwarf and warlord.  As a side comment, is it that exceptional for a battlefield to have some cover every 20 squares or so?


----------



## Surgoshan (Jun 13, 2008)

Not for the purpose of stealth.  

"When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover.  Your allies never grant cover to your enemies and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks."

By my reading, creatures provide cover only for ranged attack rolls.  I've not heard of anything from wizards to confirm or deny that, though.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jun 13, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> 1)
> However, it certainly strains credulity to be able to hide in melee, 5' from someone, simply because there's a pillar or small tree in your square. THAT needs to be errata'd immediately.




Here, here.  Combat advantage is only granted when an enemy is unaware of your presence.  Stealth only means the enemy cannot see you or hear you currently, but if they have been attacked by you then they are certainly aware of your presence.  At most this would give  you a good first attack.  If you stealthed up after an attack I would only grant combat advantage if your next attack on the opponent was from a totally unexpected direction, not merely popping up in the exact same spot you were 6 seconds prior.

 Stealth is not invisibility.  It can be almost as good sometimes but it's not the same.  I would never grant combat advantage to someone who attacks, then stealths up behind another character or even a crate then "pops out" to attack.  This is simply cover and is already well defined.


----------



## KidSnide (Jun 13, 2008)

I prefer the interpretation in which having allies between you and the enemy grants cover for purposes of the enemy's attacks, but not for purposes of stealth.  The RAW on this point is unclear, although I admit that it's probably not the RAI.  

Peh - I agree with the sentiment that the RAW is awful and needs both a re-think and a clarification.  I just think that a sniper rogue that can regain stealth every round is not an inherently unbalanced character, provided that he has to work at it to stay in a covered position.

-KS


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

*It helps to read*



			
				Surgoshan said:
			
		

> Not for the purpose of stealth.
> 
> "When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover.  Your allies never grant cover to your enemies and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks."
> 
> By my reading, creatures provide cover only for ranged attack rolls.  I've not heard of anything from wizards to confirm or deny that, though.




I found the key point in this post as to be the word READING. It seems a lot of people haven't fully read the books. Xorn being one of them who tends to be more reactionary then fact based responses. Please cite all your book references, the whole comment about rogues gaining CA behind Allies is not true, its only cover in terms of ranged attacks if there are multiple enemies, not allies. RANGED attacks only. Please read pages 280 and 281 to refresh yourself on what is considered Cover and Concealment.

Back in post 55, Sanzuo made a great post with official response from WotC. 


"...Once the rogue has revealed himself from stealth via attack, he cannot restealth again unless he performs another "non attack" action such as moving to a different set of cover/concealment and then making another successful stealth check. Any enemy who perceives him using a Perception roll at the DC of his stealth roll will see him and thus negate Combat Advantage."

I think the key point in that statement is 'different set of cover/concealment'. Because later on in the post Sanzuo says why not just stay in the one bush in the middle of the battlefield, pick your nose as a minor action stealthly, then gain CA and attack... Simply because if you see a rogue pop out of the ONE bush and attack you, revealing him and no longer CA if/when he regains stealth, its not going to be hard to tell where he is at. Sure you can't seem him, but its not like he is going anywhere, be like a guy popping out of a barrel taking a shot and ducking back in, pretty sure after he reveals himself once, you know where he is, because he didn't move from that spot, at all. Sure he might have stealth, and you don't know when the next time he will do a jack-in-the-box attack is (those things still catch me by suprise, how about you?) but you can easily approach it and find yourself whatever is hidding within.

I would also like to reference pg. 279. COMBAT ADVANTAGE. If you read the very first line states "One of the most common attack modifiers is Combat Advantage." Followed by the line "Combat Advantage represents a situation in which the defender can't give full attention to defense." I will let you read the rest, but reference things like "caught off guard". Meaning someone that is hidden in a barrel or a bush, unless you are directly upon them or directly paying attention to them (standard action, searching: top of page 187, and all of Perception pg 186) they will be hard to keep track of and defend properly. Keep in mind WotC expects CA to be easily achieved since first off they said it was one of the most common modifiers and secondly because of a whole class, subset of abilities, and various other feats all depend on whether or not one has CA. This all binds together when you read the section at the bottom of page 281 "Targeting What You Can't See" it treats invisible creatures as using stealth, bold text even. It references mechanics that deal with finding creatures you can't see. Again this is back to Sanzuos statement about the ONE bush in the middle of a battle field, or the condensed barrel anology.

But clearly this original post wasn't about any of these tangents like how easily CA should be achieved, which class has better damage, who's making personal attacks, or any such things. It was about using the rules that stand and managing the number of dice rolled. Personally I don't see what the big fuss is. I roll my attacks and damage dice at the same time to speed things up. I am sure most players and DMs have multiple sets of Dice, so if you know what the elites Perception is, make that the blue d20, and then the rest can be minons. And with one fist full of dice rolled, see who passes/fails. Or what I have seen a lot of DMs do, is with large numbers of stuff like minons, just role one d20, so that elite gets his own roll, then the 5 minons get only 1 roll as a group. Another mechanic to use is reverse Stealth Perception, since Xorn was complaining each turn he rolled 6 dice, 1 player 5 creatures, rolled each time a player when. Why not just Roll the Creatures Perception once for the full round, and thats the stealth DC players have to get... wow that makes it fast. Instead of having to roll those creatures 5 dice every players turn for their stealth, now its just once, and saving you from rolling (players-1)*5 rolls each full round of combat. I mean their are countless ways to work it out so it flows much faster. Because having the DM roll 1 d20 5 times each players turn really slows down a game, try multiples, or Perception DC for the round. Or just stick with passive Perception, because maybe that lvl 1 Kobold isn't suppose to see someone who specializes in stealth, for god sake its a lvl 1 kobold versus a person that has trained exstensively in how to be stealthy. I think their are plenty of ways to figure out how to speed things up. Personally I would like whichever group is larger, players or baddies, to just roll once for the full round for their respective skill, and have that as a DC the opposed skill needs to beat. That way the larger group needs to make the least rolls, speeding up things. Or for the lazy DM, just roll once per full round for the NPCs and have that be the DC the players need to beat, make them do all the rolling. I think the rules on this read fine the way they stand, the problem seems to be with people not being able to find ways to properly manage play.


----------



## Sanzuo (Jun 13, 2008)

Volabit said:
			
		

> ...




Oh hey man.

I really think you should edit out the hostile bits of that post.  They're kind of unnecessary.  I understand your personality but your post makes it sound like you're just trying to antagonize everyone.  Just FYI.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

*...*

Sorry you think that. Statings facts that are easily referenced this entire post. Like when some people make personal comments about stuff versus when people quote others and reference material readily availible for all. I feel no remorse in pointing out the difference, I think it's clear on what material is meaningful and what is someone personal rant filled with bias emotion that lacks substantial material. All I did was comment on some of the major issues that I actually felt like commenting on and need a correction/clarification.


Edited:
Ditto on Sanz sig, we had a great game, didn't we. I forgot to post after you did, I wanted to earmark that session as when it all began, the true colors of a certain player.


----------



## Sanzuo (Jun 13, 2008)

Volabit said:
			
		

> All I did was comment on some of the major issues that I actually felt like commenting on and need a correction/clarification.




No, you joined in on the exact same chest-puffing "I'M RIGHT" style posting that you seem to be angry at in the first place.



			
				Volabit said:
			
		

> I found the key point in this post as to be the word READING. It seems a lot of people haven't fully read the books. Xorn being one of them who tends to be more reactionary then fact based responses. Please cite all your book references, the whole comment about rogues gaining CA behind Allies is not true, its only cover in terms of ranged attacks if there are multiple enemies, not allies. RANGED attacks only. Please read pages 280 and 281 to refresh yourself on what is considered Cover and Concealment.




The above statement is just dripping with contempt.  All I'm saying is you don't need to do this.  Just state your point without all the hostility, man.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 13, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> Stated by others before, but I'll repeat it--isn't the reason Sneak Attack adds more damage than the Warlock or Ranger damage increases because it's harder to get Combat Advantage?




No.  It's more likely to balance against the ranger's double attacks.



			
				Xorn said:
			
		

> Can anyone say (with a straight face) that it's harder to get combat advantage on pretty much any target you like with the current Stealth as intended?




Yes. The ranger designates his quarry automatically w/ a minor action, the rogue has to make a stealth roll.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

*interesting,*

Wow Sanz, you really are 'reading' into this more then you need to. I think most everyone on here is posting what they feel is right, like your post just now, I am sure you feel you are right in thinking i am 'dripping' with whatever term you feel like labeling me with. And I am sure that's your what you want to do, label. I don't mind that you do that, but please take it out of the forum. It is not a concern for the material at hand, the OP idea of how to reduce dice rolls. Just because what I posted doesn't parallel your concepts, shouldn't make you stretch out for some reason to discredit anything I have typed. But if you feel it's more important, then I guess go ahead...

As to my quotes you referenced in ascending order, I don't think I have seen a lot of posts Xorn has made (that I can remember) where they referenced one page out of the book of facts. Usually thats when people are just displaying their opinions over information. Again that it not wrong to share your opinion with other, not at all. I was stating that there were comments made about gaining Concealment from your Allies, and then referenced what pages the clearifications can be found on. But again, feel free to over analyze it, and make whatever label you feel you want to. As for the first quote, please clearify for me, or whoever else, what actions denote as 'chest-puffing'. At the end of the post, if you managed to read that far, I listed several tools that are useful in reducing times of actions. Notice how I didn't say a single one of those was the RIGHT (your "I'M RIGHT" needs to be caps correct?). I stated which one I prefered because mathmatically it seemed to be the lowest number of dice rolled, and still allowing a form of opposed checks.... but please label me again as chest-puffing I'm Rightism... Then I closed with my opinion after stating facts, that the problem at hand, with earlier given solutions, isn't so much the rule, as it is the people not having, finding, or using good tools for the material at hand. Perhaps one of the several ideas I presented on how to reduce dice rolling someone might find useful, or might even enspire them to adapt a similar way. If so, then I would be pleased if only one person found those ideas useful and it helped them speed up their games. I am here to inform, not here to find out the one solution. Dripping with all that can drip. 

But now back to you, I think you have spent too much of your time, in your semi-job mind you, surfing the Something Awful forums. You really have come out jaded, and I know this because practically every single game night you would say how at work when you were surfing that said forum, you found x and y, or this person being bashed for this, and other flaming another for something else. Please take that attitude back to that forum. Don't go blindly accusing. Now what is this paragraph "dripping" with Sanz? I think you can apply a little attitude to your enternal voice when you read this to make it more accurate, as for the other material, read it at face value to avoid making the mistake of find stuff that really isn't there.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 13, 2008)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> ...I just think that a sniper rogue that can regain stealth every round is not an inherently unbalanced character, provided that he has to work at it to stay in a covered position.




I don't either.  Stealth is the ranged-rogue's equivalent of the melee-rogue's maneuvering to flank.


----------



## med stud (Jun 13, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> Enemy | Enemy
> Fighter | Warlord
> 
> 
> ...



What you say makes sense. This is, though, one of the things I would like to see in play first. In this case, the uncertain factor is if the rogue will be left alone. If an enemy moves up to the rogue, that tactic will be much harder to execute. A skirmisher can be a real pain in the ass for the rogue. A bunch of minions chasing the rogue can be problematic.

Maybe you are right, you seem to have given this more thought than I have. But to me, this is one of the situations that feel like they have to be played out to be evaluated fully.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 13, 2008)

Volabit, if you had taken the time to point out I have tiny genitals I think your post would have been complete.  I have thoroughly cited where I'm reading each rule (Bluff, Stealth, Cover/Concealment, Targeting What You Can't See, and CSR responses to the WotC Answers Stealth from the DDI rules forums), but incorrectly assumed that everyone reading the thread could read the table of contents and index.  My apologies.  I have never stated that I'm right or anyone else is wrong.  I've stated (quite clearly, I feel) that I hate the stealth rules as intended.

I even came up with a nifty Stealth As Intended™ slogan, which means, "Read the last 5 pages, and insert that here."  Again, whatever I've done to you personally to draw your ire, I apologize.

Cover _never_ applies to close or area attacks, and melee cover only applies in the instance of intervening solid obstacles.  So that only leaves ranged cover.  And the rules as they are written indicates that an ally in front of you creates a blocked line of sight.  If you draw a line to each corner of the target square from one of your corners, if 1-2 lines are blocked by terrain or the enemy's allies, they have cover.  If 3-4 lines are blocked (but you still have line of effect), they have superior cover.  This is clearly illustrated in the cover rules, so break out your PHB and read away.

Feel free to disagree, and present your points as to why, but I'm actually a little miffed that you labeled me as reactionary and unwilling to read all the rules.  While you're decreeing that _your_ method is right, maybe you should head over to DDI and read the "WotC Answers Stealth!" thread (you've read it, right, because it has responses from CSRs six times in there) and each CSR reply contradicts the previous one.

The only thing they all consistently point out is that you are supposed to be able to make a Stealth check in combat as long as you have a successful Bluff, or cover/concealment.  They can't agree on if you have to start/remain/end in cover/concealment, they can't agree on if you can "stealthily" attack, they can't even agree on if you have to move out of the square you start it, and they just said "technically the rules allow it" when addressing using cover granted by an ally.

So going on what I know is consistent, and Stealth As Intended™ (I hope I've thoroughly explained the importance of that slogan now), it's ridiculously easy to sneak attack whatever target you like from range as a rogue.  The warlock and ranger can only do their extra damage to the closest target.  For the ranger to double shoot, they have to make two attack rolls.  Assuming the rogue and ranger both have a 50% hit chance, 25% of the time the ranger misses with both, 50% of the time they hit once, and 25% of the time they hit with both.  They average a single hit.  The rogue will average a single hit, which gets their ability mod damage added.

But one more time, in the most direct way I can state it, so you don't feel the urge to label me as reactionary and unaware of the rules as written and/or intended:

*I understand how Stealth As Intended™ works; I think it sucks, because it makes achieving a sneak attack in melee harder than achieving a sneak attack from range.  If you like it, that's fortunate for you, because that's how the mechanic is intended.  I reserve the right to think it sucks without being insulted for it.*


----------



## Xorn (Jun 13, 2008)

*CSR Dialog*

I've adjusted my name in the dialogs so that Volabit doesn't beat me up.  The first question is at the bottom, reading up.



			
				WotC CSR Dialog said:
			
		

> Greetings,
> 
> Thanks for the great feedback! We’ve passed this along to the good folks that make the games and hopefully we’ll see some errata covering this situation soon. Until then, it is up to your Dungeon Master to determine how he/she wants to handle this particular situation in their campaign.
> 
> ...




There, now I can cite a source that says, "Wizards is working on errata for Stealth, and until then it's up to the DM to decide how to handle this situation.  In my campaign, it will not be easier to sneak attack from range than melee.  I really don't care what you do in yours, nor will I tell you that you're wrong, regardless of your decision.

"Your" refers to anyone mentioning how they will run it.


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 13, 2008)

I wasn't planning on posting again but this has me curious.

To Volabit: Can you quote where it says you can't hide behind an ally that is providing you cover?
I read both pages you quoted 280 and 281 and neither makes any distinction on what kind of cover isn't included in making stealth rules.  The book is written on an exception basis so one can only assume that unless they specifically state that you can't then you must be able to.

The only part of those two pages which apply is as follows:



> Page 280
> 
> Determining Cover: To determine if a target has cover, choose a corner of a square you occupy (or a corner of your attack's origin square)  and trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies.  If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn't blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle's or enemies square.) If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has cover.




It clearly doesn't state what you're claiming it does.  It does state further up the page about range cover and that it doesn't apply when a target is in melee range.  However if the target is at range he does have cover. 

I'm not saying this is good or bad just how it's written.  I think for the most part every one feels it should be interpretted other than how it's actually written.

If you're going to include pages as your source material please make sure it actually backs up what you're saying before attacking others for not doing the same.  In my opinion giving pages and stating your right is worse than not including pages and stating the information provided in them.  Your posts are very inflammatory towards Xorn as well as Sanzuo. (Border line personal attacks if not full out personal attacks.)  Wether or not you're doing so intentionally doesn't matter as that is how it's being interpretted. 

As far as Xorn not knowing the books I can safely say he's probably one of the most knowledgable person regarding the rules that I know as he's been play testing it for almost 6 months now and he's read the book cover to cover more than once.  Needless to say if I have questions about the rules he's the go to guy.  He's not always 100% on in his interpretations but he's willing to listen and reevaluate his interpretations as more information is presented to him or pointed out to him.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 13, 2008)

But I do have very tiny genitals.


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 13, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> But I do have very tiny genitals.





Sorry.. I promised I wouldn't kiss and tell.


----------



## zlorf (Jun 13, 2008)

In your scenario below, just get all /some of the enemies roll for perception as a standard action, there may be a chance that they see the rogue in the bush, even if they didnt during there active perception.
ie Rogue throws dagger from bush and get CA on orc. 6 other orcs go, hey where did that come from, one makes its perception check as a standard action and yell "From the bush, charge!!!"

Z






Quote:
And here we have the root of the problem.  I think it's fine if the rogue is having to constantly shift and move to avoid being seen. It paints the picture of skilled sniper in my head.  The problem is the fact that stealth can be used as a part of any non-revealing action; standard, movement or minor.  

Depending on the group this can be interpreted a large number of different ways.  The way I see it intended, a rogue (or anybody) can sit in a single bush in the middle of a battlefield (how NOT to be seen) can pick his nose stealthily as a minor action and attack all day with combat advantage, whether or not he's surrounded by hostiles in melee.

Now I have a hard time believing R&D didn't playtest the sh..poop out of this, and I would think they truly believe this is balanced.  I'm not 100% sure as I've yet to play an actual game with the released rules.  So I'm willing to try it out and see how it goes.

When I try to think of it practically it's stupid, and the more I think of it the more I like Xorn's idea of rogues having to get total concealment or lose line of sight in order to effectively re-stealth.  Otherwise there's no reason not to make a sniper, and let's frigging face it, that role is intended for the ranger.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 13, 2008)

Ranger with the Rogue multiclass feat.  Sniper that can pick locks. 

You understand where I'm coming from zlorf (as does most everyone here, I think).  And regarding the active perception checks--now you're dealing with extra dice rolls just to deal with stealth each round.  Blech.  

I'm handling it my way until errata comes out.  After that, we'll see.

EDIT - Oh, I wanted to mention that I don't think it's crazy that this didn't seem out of whack in playtesting.  After all, until someone mentioned the idea of it on DDI, I hadn't considered it, and neither had anyone to play a rogue in any of my games thus far.  I ran Into the Shadowhaunt three times on GameDay and the dragon fight four times--and not one rogue even considered the idea of stealthing in the middle of combat with regular old cover.


----------



## Lucas Blackstone (Jun 13, 2008)

I'm starting a Xorn has at least medium sized genitals campaign ( not in the D&D term, but the general term for campaign ). I feel as though Xorn's  genitals have been unfairly persecuted.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 13, 2008)

Wow.


----------



## Harr (Jun 13, 2008)

^ Are you guys all from the same face-to-face group that fought and are now taking it out on the boards or something?

Makes me glad my players have never been on an online forum in their lives (and actually make fun of me a little ebit cause I am  ).

Anyway, I'll re-iterate the points that I've been able to use to balance the games and have made everyone happy (and please, this is mostly for the lurkers and people who see the thread the title and come in here looking for answers, and find ... whatever that up there's supposed to be.)

If you're having trouble with runaway ranged stealthing, suggest the following to your players:


***

 - A stealth check may only be taken as part of a move action that moves you to a different square than the one you started in.

 - You must have either cover or concealment _before_ you begin this stealthy move action, _after_ you end this action, and _during_ every square of that move action.

 - Once the conditions above are met, you achieve stealth by making an opposed stealth roll against the perception roll of one enemy that is closest to you.

 - Making attacks or talking destroys your stealth, and you must make another stealthy move from cover as described above to regain it.

 - If any one enemy is located or moves to where you don't have conceal/cover from them, that enemy is assumed to shout out a warning to his friends, and you lose your stealth.

 - Allies do not count as cover for the purposes of stealth.

 - Bluff and distracting are good for getting concealment for _starting_ and _continuing_ a stealthy move, but you must still end your move behind real, actual cover or concealment.

And, optionally:

 - Once you make a sneak-attack to a target from a square, that particular target is assumed to be guarding from attacks coming from that particular square and will not be caught distracted again. You need to find another square to stealth into.

***


There, that should patch up your game until official word on this issue comes out, if it ever does.

Again, I thank the posters above to let this post stand as help for people who come looking for it and to not drag me into the mudslinging.


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 13, 2008)

Xorn is my DM but I have no idea who Lucas Blackstone is.. but evidently he's a member of the Xorn Genetalia Fan Club. (Order your membership packet today!)

What you listed are good ideas as many other ideas have been good ones.  I think the main source of angst has been people trying to interpret the rules as written versus how to change them.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

ozziewolf said:
			
		

> I wasn't planning on posting again but this has me curious.
> 
> To Volabit: Can you quote where it says you can't hide behind an ally that is providing you cover?
> I read both pages you quoted 280 and 281 and neither makes any distinction on what kind of cover isn't included in making stealth rules.  The book is written on an exception basis so one can only assume that unless they specifically state that you can't then you must be able to.




Page 280. The graphic labeled Cover. The attacker has line of effects to the troll and cover to the troll because of the Goblin in front of the troll. He aslo has line of effect to the bugbear while and ally is between them, but it clearly states "No Cover" in large green white letters. 

Now it says "Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and the other enemies are in the way, your target has cover.." When you make a ranged attack they have cover, not when you move to make a stealth check they have cover. Only when you attack not move do they gain cover, and you can't make a stealth check as part of an attack as stated by WotC officials. The paragraph later goes on to say "Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks." Again, first part says right out, allies NEVER grant cover to  your enemies, can't read that any other way. 

Sorry I ommitted this in my original post, was late and felt like razzing Sanzuo since I saw him on   But I hope that answers your question Ozzie


----------



## Xorn (Jun 13, 2008)

Only one person has done any mudslinging Harr, and we've been making light of them now (and my genitalia).  My case (and most of the comments here) are discussing the rules as written (and interpretations) versus the rules as intended (from what the CSRs have been consistent on) and stating our opinions of it.

I don't like the ease of getting combat advantage from cover/concealment as opposed to getting combat advantage at range.  If, as a rogue, you want combat advantage as often as possible, there is little incentive to close into melee.  I don't like that.  Some don't think it will be a big deal.

But please don't start suggesting things out of thin air; where you get the idea I'm having an argument with my gaming group over a forum is beyond me, but I assure you, it's ridiculous.  I'm just talking about 4E rules that I don't like, in a 4E rules forum, and one of my players happens to read the same forum.  That's it.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> I've adjusted my name in the dialogs so that Volabit doesn't beat me up.  The first question is at the bottom, reading up.





Thanks Xorn, I appreciate you posting that in it entire original form, minus the name change to avoid furture potential beatings   

This allows everyone to make their own reading on it and not that of a paraphrase. so again thank you.


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 13, 2008)

Volabit said:
			
		

> Page 280. The graphic labeled Cover. The attacker has line of effects to the troll and cover to the troll because of the Goblin in front of the troll. He aslo has line of effect to the bugbear while and ally is between them, but it clearly states "No Cover" in large green white letters.
> 
> Now it says "Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and the other enemies are in the way, your target has cover.." When you make a ranged attack they have cover, not when you move to make a stealth check they have cover. Only when you attack not move do they gain cover, and you can't make a stealth check as part of an attack as stated by WotC officials. The paragraph later goes on to say "Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks." Again, first part says right out, allies NEVER grant cover to  your enemies, can't read that any other way.




Double check the picture and what it represents.  The arrows are all going away from the player.  The player is labeled "attacker"  The picture simply represents that the two monsters have cover from the wall but the bottom monster doesn't have cover because allies do not grant cover to monsters.

Infact if you look the very top troll has cover because of the goblin infront of him and not because of the wall. So yes your allies infront of you do provide covers against your enemy.

Edit: As for not stating that when you move and stealth.  Remember the rulebook is written on an exception basis so unless it specifically states otherwise then yes it does provide cover for the purpose of stealth.  If you don't believe me that the book is written on an exception basis then look at the section for provoking opportunity attacks and granting combat advantage.  It specifically says when certain situations don't give you combat advantage or don't provoke OA's.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

ozziewolf said:
			
		

> Double check the picture and what it represents.  The arrows are all going away from the player.  The player is labeled "attacker"  The picture simply represents that the two monsters have cover from the wall but the bottom monster doesn't have cover because allies do not grant cover to monsters.
> 
> Infact if you look the very top troll has cover because of the goblin infront of him and not because of the wall. So yes your allies infront of you do provide covers against your enemy.





Ahh yes, thanks you are correct, it states which of the defenders does have cover. But it's Ranged attack only as the rule says. This Diagram is showing a ranged attack to either a troll or a Bugbear.

 So it means the reverse it true, on the same diagram if the Bugbear were to make a ranged attack against the labeled 'attacker', since the bugbear is firing through an enemy to the 'attacker', the attacker has cover, but as the rules say, only for a ranged attack. So if the 'attacker' is a 'rogue' instead, he has cover against ranged attacks only from the bugbear. But the rules say from attacks only, and the rogue can't stealth when others attack him, it is not his turn. If the bugbear isn't making a ranged attack, then the 'rogue' doesn't have cover.


----------



## Deverash (Jun 13, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> Cover _never_ applies to close or area attacks, and melee cover only applies in the instance of intervening solid obstacles.




Not really on topic, but cover _does_ apply to close an area attacks.  The lines to determine whether cover exists, though, start in the origin square, not the attackers square.

Concealment may be what you were thinking of that does apply to area/close attacks.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

By the way, with the 6th level Rogue utility Chameleon (it's at-will), the ranged rogue is never losing sneak-attack. If he loses cover because the Schmoe in melee decides to walk up past the fighter-tank and find him, Chameleon would trigger and the rogue would remain hidden "in plain sight". The rogue just has to regain cover on his turn and shoot again. Or shoot, and then hide, that works too. 

Before, I thought that the ranged-rogue hiding behind his allies might not be broken as the bad guys can just walk up and find him eventually -- the rogue may be hidden, but the baddies would know generally what square he was in. With Chameleon being at-will, they'll walk past the fighter and just not see him. 

Wow . . . the whole 99%-of-the-time-hidden-thing is pretty damn close to being true IMHO . . . go kobold shuriken rogues! 

BTW, the argument that warlocks and (hahahahahahaha) rangers can keep up with the damage output of an always-sneak-attacking rogue is over, right?


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

Deverash said:
			
		

> Not really on topic, but cover _does_ apply to close an area attacks.  The lines to determine whether cover exists, though, start in the origin square, not the attackers square.
> 
> Concealment may be what you were thinking of that does apply to area/close attacks.





Pg. 280 "Creatures and Cover:" Second sentence reads "Your Allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks."

Pg 281 the "Cover against an Area Attack" show the Bugbears gaining no Cover from their allies, but the Goblin gaining Cover from the statue.

So yes you can gain cover from objects but not from other creatures it seems. I believe that is what Xorn says in the last part of his sentence, 'only applies in the instance of intervening solid obstacles'. I think you two are saying the same thing, just different ways of going about it.


----------



## wocky (Jun 13, 2008)

Given the ease of stealthing and getting combat advantage (as per my understanding of the rules and that of most people in this thread) *I'm considering house ruling a -5 penalty to attempting to hide while in combat... do you think this would fix things somewhat?*

As for hiding behind allies... I think this could have an extra -5 penalty, since allies move around during battle and hiding behind them requires synchronizing one's own movements with that of the ally...  still, I wouldn't have a problem with disallowing this altogether.

I believe the stealth rules are not all they should... and I have no problem with house ruling them to make them what I'd expect. I'd appreciate any ideas you have of how these rules should work. Why did things work better in 3.5? Wasn't it mostly the same? Higher DCs to hide?


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jun 13, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> Enemy | Enemy
> Fighter | Warlord
> 
> 
> ...




Just because you are stealthed does not grant you combat advantage.  If you have already attacked an opponent and they are aware of you then you do not have combat advantage unless you are invisible.  Stealthed is not the same as invisible, which is a condition that grants combat advantage.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> Before, I thought that the ranged-rogue hiding behind his allies might not be broken as the bad guys can just walk up and find him eventually -- the rogue may be hidden, but the baddies would know generally what square he was in. With Chameleon being at-will, they'll walk past the fighter and just not see him.




You can't hide behind your allies. You gain cover from ONLY ranged attacks at you. And you can't make a hide check on the enemies turn while he is attacking the rogue. Once the attack ends, you no longer have cover against only that ranged attack, and no cover means no stealth. On the rogues turn, nothing is attacking him, so he can't regain cover.

As for Chameleon, its a sweet ability, and its wording lets itself to be very powerful. The trigger in particular is interesting. "You are hidden and lose cover or concealment against an opponent." So this can be triggered if the attacker fires through your friend at you, giving you cover for just that attack, when the attack ends you have lost cover and trigger is off... BUT the first part says you are hidden. So to be hidden in the first place you must have some consitant non-situational cover/concealment. Because for your allies to give you cover, the creature must attack you, and a creature can't atack if they can't see you. If you can't be hidden in the first place, you can't use Chameleons trigger for gaining and losing the cover your friend gave you against only that ranged attack.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

Otterscrubber said:
			
		

> Just because you are stealthed does not grant you combat advantage.  If you have already attacked an opponent and they are aware of you then you do not have combat advantage unless you are invisible.  Stealthed is not the same as invisible, which is a condition that grants combat advantage.




You can read the rules that way if you like, but given previously posted conversations with customer support, etc., you're not reading the rules as they were intended to be intepreted. Frankly, this interpretation doesn't merely weaken Stealth, it castrates it. 

4E is not about making combat _rules_ tricky -- I doubt they intended to differentiate between 'hidden' and 'unaware', but I can appreciate how and why you'd make that interpretation. However, with this interpretation, I think you need to discuss what exactly 'aware' and 'unaware' mean, and how one goes from one condition to the other.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 13, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> BTW, the argument that warlocks and (hahahahahahaha) rangers can keep up with the damage output of an always-sneak-attacking rogue is over, right?




Nope.  Show me some numbers.  

At the Heroic Tier, Sneak Attack does an average +3.5 dmg/rnd compared to Hunter's Quarry and Warlock's Curse.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 13, 2008)

Volabit, I like your reading of cover from your allies.  Good interpretation of RAW, and a very strong case for that.  Were I to allow Stealth in combat to work as intended, I would most assuredly rule that ally-cover doesn't allow a stealth check on this basis.

Forrester: According the the CSRs (who have made some contradictions in their answers) the one thing they unanimously have agreed on is that you are allowed to use Stealth in combat to gain combat advantage (target can't see you) provided you have cover/concealment (or a successful Bluff).

We know that part is intended, we're having more of a discussion about if this feels overpowered.  It does to me, because it makes melee sneak attacks harder to achieve than ranged, for a rogue, which is... well... silly to me.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

Volabit said:
			
		

> You can't hide behind your allies. You gain cover from ONLY ranged attacks at you. And you can't make a hide check on the enemies turn while he is attacking the rogue. Once the attack ends, you no longer have cover against only that ranged attack, and no cover means no stealth. On the rogues turn, nothing is attacking him, so he can't regain cover.




Another overly creative interpretation of the rules. Why do you have cover only on your enemy's turn, again? Just because that's the only time he can make a ranged attack? That makes no sense. 

The second bullet under the Stealth description is very clear -- "if a creature has unblocked line of sight to you (you lack any cover or concealment) the creature automatically sees you." They would not have said that if he automatically sees you as well with partially blocked line of sight -- which you have when you are standing behind an ally. 

Cover isn't something that blinks in and out of existence depending on whose turn it is. Interpreting it so that the only cover that does is cover that works as well against melee attacks as ranged attacks is, frankly, bizarre.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

Otterscrubber said:
			
		

> Just because you are stealthed does not grant you combat advantage.  If you have already attacked an opponent and they are aware of you then you do not have combat advantage unless you are invisible.  Stealthed is not the same as invisible, which is a condition that grants combat advantage.





The only difference between invis and stealth is that you DON'T need Cover or Concealment to be invis and stealth-hidden you do. Even the rules on Invis say you have to make a stealth check. Stealth vs Perception isn't just seeing someone, its hearing, noticing footprints, blades of grass moving, dust stiring up. Both invis and hidden use the same stealth check, but invis doesn't require C/C and has a higher DC mod to actually find.

So invis says you automaticly gain CA. And under the CA listing in the book (pg 280) it lists a table of what gives people CA, a lot of stuff, but is says 'Unaware of you. (Page 188)'. Now going to there it's the steath section where the last part of the first paragraph reads "...and sneak up on people without being seen." further down to the star for "Cover or Concealment" it reads "Unless a creature is distracted, you must have cover against or concealment from the creature to make a Stealth check." A success on a stealth check, which can only be made if you have C/C, means they are unaware of you, and furter down on the star "Combat Advantage: you have combat advantage against a target that isn't aware of you." So if you have C/C and succeed at your stealth check, meaning you ducked behind a tree, around a corner, or in a small creek bed, they arent aware of where you went off to and thus not fully able to defend against an attack from an undetermined direction. Granting CA.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> Cover isn't something that blinks in and out of existence depending on whose turn it is. Interpreting it so that the only cover that does is cover that works as well against melee attacks as ranged attacks is, frankly, bizarre.





I agree 100%. My point is that a rogue can't use any form of cover that may or may not appear from allies and ranged attacks. I was pointing out how it doesn't work and shouldn't be a concern for stealth checks. The cover from allies is perhaps only a mechanic used to represent how hard it is to shoot through another baddies space to get to the target behind more then a rogues reason to hide. Clearly you can see that person behind them, nothing changes that, I think its just there to make the attack harder.


----------



## infocynic (Jun 13, 2008)

As much as I agree that Stealth is overpowered if allowed to be abused, I'm not sure that it's really a huge issue that it's harder to sneak attack from range... I mean, if you have to tiptoe up to someone and stab them in the back, isn't that a lot harder than just sniping them from the bushes? Whether that by itself is overpowered is certainly worth discussing, but from a FLAVOR perspective, it seems appropriate.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> Nope.  Show me some numbers.
> 
> At the Heroic Tier, Sneak Attack does an average +3.5 dmg/rnd compared to Hunter's Quarry and Warlock's Curse.




Let's stick to the ranged rogue, which does a little less, as he's the guy most likely to be sneak-attacking every round. 

A 1st level goblin rogue with the standard build (16 in Dex, 14 in Chr, +2 to each) and the Backstabber feat is doing 2d8+d6+7 points of damage, attacking against AC, or 2d8+d6+4 damage against Reflex. 

A 1st level warlock that changes his quarry to d8 damage is doing (let's max it out) d10+d8+4. A ranger . . . well, they suck, too bored to calculate. 

Rogue = 19.5 damage per hit or 16.5 damage per hit vs reflex (and will be getting +2 to hit that the warlock won't as often) 

Warlock = 14 damage per hit. 
Ranger = ?? Something crappier. 

Even if you assume it's merely an extra 3 damage a round vs the warlock (who gets to attack against Fort), that's a 20% advantage. The ranger is going up against AC, meaning we'd prefer to use the rogue's 19.5 damage as a comparator, which will CRUSH the ranger.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jun 13, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> You can read the rules that way if you like, but given previously posted conversations with customer support, etc., you're not reading the rules as they were intended to be intepreted. Frankly, this interpretation doesn't merely weaken Stealth, it castrates it.
> 
> 4E is not about making combat _rules_ tricky -- I doubt they intended to differentiate between 'hidden' and 'unaware', but I can appreciate how and why you'd make that interpretation. However, with this interpretation, I think you need to discuss what exactly 'aware' and 'unaware' mean, and how one goes from one condition to the other.




I don't think stealth was intended to be interpreted as permanent invisibility, do you?  This does not castrate stealth, as this is not what stealth was meant for, unless you are a rogue who thinks the only purpose of stealth is to grant you combat advantage every single round of your existence.  Stealth will be used to be, you know stealthy when it is needed.  Grant you a surprise round in combat if you're smart, sneak somewhere to find out a vital piece of intel, escape or get something useful.  In my current group we have 4 out of 5 stealthers and we use it all the time to great advantage(but not necessarily combat advantage haha), but never have we expected/interpreted it to grant combat advantage in the middle of an ongoing fight with opponents who are already aware that they are under attack.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

Volabit said:
			
		

> I agree 100%. *My point is that a rogue can't use any form of cover that may or may not appear from allies and ranged attacks. I was pointing out how it doesn't work and shouldn't be a concern for stealth checks.* The cover from allies is perhaps only a mechanic used to represent how hard it is to shoot through another baddies space to get to the target behind more then a rogues reason to hide. Clearly you can see that person behind them, nothing changes that, I think its just there to make the attack harder.




You can say that as often as you want, but according to the rules, Stealth doesn't work the way you would like it to. There's nothing in the rules that says a rogue can't use cover given to him from allies when hiding. If he can hide behind a small tree, he can hide behind his fat-ass dwarf buddy. Whether this is broken (probably) is another question -- I have no problem with errata or house rules on the issue, but I do have a problem with saying that *by the rules as written* the rogue can't use allies for cover. 

Why wouldn't your interpretation invalidate the rogue hiding behind a tree? After all, the tree doesn't give him cover on his turn, he's not being attacked.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jun 13, 2008)

Volabit said:
			
		

> A success on a stealth check, which can only be made if you have C/C, means they are unaware of you, and furter down on the star "Combat Advantage: you have combat advantage against a target that isn't aware of you." So if you have C/C and succeed at your stealth check, meaning you ducked behind a tree, around a corner, or in a small creek bed, they arent aware of where you went off to and thus not fully able to defend against an attack from an undetermined direction. Granting CA.



That's a big negative Ghost-Rider.  If you make a successful stealth roll you are hidden, not invisible.  If you have attacked an opponent they are aware of you, i.e. their guard is up and they are ready for combat.  Creatures in combat are considered to be aware of their surroundings in all directions and as soon as you attack you are not hidden, i.e. they are aware of you and see you coming at them or attacking them and you do not have combat advantage.  This is how is is read in the rules, this is how it makes sense via common sense.  If you are a rogue desperately trying to get combat advantage every round when you don't deserve it I can see how you might see otherwise and I won't be able to change your mind.  But personally this just looks like a cheap attempt at getting perma-invisibility benefits when they are clearly not deserved via the RAW or the RAI.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> A 1st level goblin rogue with the standard build (16 in Dex, 14 in Chr, +2 to each) and the Backstabber feat is doing 2d8+d6+7 points of damage, attacking against AC, or 2d8+d6+4 damage against Reflex.




I am confused, where does that extra d6 come from? The only goblin I see that gains the d6 bonus damage is the Goblin Blackblade and the Sharpshooter. I didn't see any other of the Goblin subtypes with it. So thats more a class specfic bonus d6 then a racial d6, could you clearify how a Gobby rogue gains that d6?


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

Otterscrubber said:
			
		

> I don't think stealth was intended to be interpreted as permanent invisibility, do you?  This does not castrate stealth, as this is not what stealth was meant for, unless you are a rogue who thinks the only purpose of stealth is to grant you combat advantage every single round of your existence.




Reading Chameleon, I'm starting to think that's exactly what it was intended for! It's also the case that for the rogue to keep up with the other strikers in damage potential, he needs to be sneak-attacking at least every other round. 

Again, I'm not arguing whether it's broken-as-written, I'm arguing the rules as written. And frankly, it may not turn out to be as broken as well all think after repeated play. I'm more annoyed that a rogue can hide in melee to get CA just because there's a tree in his square, or it's raining. This ranged stuff, it may be broken, maybe not. Bad guys get to move around too. (With Chameleon, though . . . jeez.)


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

Volabit said:
			
		

> I am confused, where does that extra d6 come from? The only goblin I see that gains the d6 bonus damage is the Goblin Blackblade and the Sharpshooter. I didn't see any other of the Goblin subtypes with it. So thats more a class specfic bonus d6 then a racial d6, could you clearify how a Gobby rogue gains that d6?




?? 

2d8 from sneak attack, d6 for the shuriken.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

Otterscrubber said:
			
		

> Creatures in combat are considered to be aware of their surroundings in all directions and as soon as you attack you are not hidden, i.e. they are aware of you and see you coming at them or attacking them and you do not have combat advantage.  This is how is is read in the rules, this is how it makes sense via common sense.




I'm not going to argue the common-sense bit, but you're wrong about the rules. Under 'distracted' in Stealth it's very clear that they are aware of their surroundings in all directions and will see you IF YOU HAVE NO COVER OR CONCEALMENT.

EDIT -- I think we're talking past each other at this point. I see nothing in the rules that explicitly differentiates between being hidden from a creature and the creature being unaware of your position, and there's a whole lot of stuff written up under Stealth which is very, very lame if being hidden doesn't have any combat advantages. Not to mention a pile of rogue Utilities. 

Under the rules as written, to me it seems as though they intended 'he's unaware' and 'you're hidden from him' as the same.  

Under your interpretation where it doesn't matter if you are hidden -- anywhere -- that is, if the enemy knows you're out there and your general direction, you don't get CA -- the ranged rogue goes from sneak attacking 95% of the time to doing it 10% of the time, which I find silly.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> You can say that as often as you want, but according to the rules, Stealth doesn't work the way you would like it to. There's nothing in the rules that says a rogue can't use cover given to him from allies when hiding. If he can hide behind a small tree, he can hide behind his fat-ass dwarf buddy. Whether this is broken (probably) is another question -- I have no problem with errata or house rules on the issue, but I do have a problem with saying that *by the rules as written* the rogue can't use allies for cover.
> 
> Why wouldn't your interpretation invalidate the rogue hiding behind a tree? After all, the tree doesn't give him cover on his turn, he's not being attacked.





Because I will type this word for word on page 280 "Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks."  Ok lets take creature Y, he has reach and a Bow. Rogue, Ally, Y are in a line. RAY, if he attacks wit his bow, he has cover just for that attack, "when you make a ranged attack" so he says, damn I dont want make a ranged attack, Maybe I should try to for reach, or not attack at all, as to not trigger the statement "WHEN you make a ranged attack.." as the paragraph clearly states. Simple if/then statement.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

Otterscrubber said:
			
		

> That's a big negative Ghost-Rider.  If you make a successful stealth roll you are hidden, not invisible.  If you have attacked an opponent they are aware of you, i.e. their guard is up and they are ready for combat.  Creatures in combat are considered to be aware of their surroundings in all directions and as soon as you attack you are not hidden, i.e. they are aware of you and see you coming at them or attacking them and you do not have combat advantage.  This is how is is read in the rules, this is how it makes sense via common sense.  If you are a rogue desperately trying to get combat advantage every round when you don't deserve it I can see how you might see otherwise and I won't be able to change your mind.  But personally this just looks like a cheap attempt at getting perma-invisibility benefits when they are clearly not deserved via the RAW or the RAI.





Correct you lose CA if you attack, and you have to make an action after to regain stealth, when you have C/C. Please read post 55, official WotC made that same statement, you are seen after you attack and lose your CA. But if you are in Cover/Conceal you can make a move action stealthly to regain it. Making a Stealth chech while you have C/C represents your ability to lose them, hide from then, duck out of sight for a moment, get lost on the crowd.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> I'm not going to argue the common-sense bit, but you're wrong about the rules. Under 'distracted' in Stealth it's very clear that they are aware of their surroundings in all directions and will see you IF YOU HAVE NO COVER OR CONCEALMENT.





Exactly, and thanks for the clearing up that other d6 earlier.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

Volabit said:
			
		

> Because I will type this word for word on page 280 "Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks."  Ok lets take creature Y, he has reach and a Bow. Rogue, Ally, Y are in a line. RAY, if he attacks wit his bow, he has cover just for that attack, "when you make a ranged attack" so he says, damn I dont want make a ranged attack, Maybe I should try to for reach, or not attack at all, as to not trigger the statement "WHEN you make a ranged attack.." as the paragraph clearly states. Simple if/then statement.




Not as goofily creative as Otter is being, but I still don't buy it! I prefer to simply go by the very definitive "defining cover" bullet where you get to draw a bunch of fun lines. That's the definitive directly-to-the-point text. 

"If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover." That's all we need to know.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 13, 2008)

So after reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the rogue sniper is an intentional build option, and using stealth every round is not broken.  

*A rogue is, conceptually, a sneaky character.  4E is designed around the combat encounter.  Thus a rogue who can use stealth in combat, fits the class concept.  

*There are MANY stealth powers for the rogue (and Warlock), some that grant concealment and some that grant invisibility.  

*The Striker role covers melee and ranged attacks.  The ranger has a melee build and a ranged build.  It makes sense for the rogue to have two builds as well-- and he does!  

*The rogue has a power at each level (except 9th oddly) that is usable in melee or w/a ranged weapon.  Out of the three Paragon paths, Dagger master is all-melee, the other two have melee/ranged powers. Lots of options for a sniper. 


These points, to my mind, show an intentional design.  Crossbow ninjas are not an exploit; they're part of the game.  


*Combat Advantage and Sneak Attack _sound_ powerful b/c of their 3E connotations, but aren't really.  In 3E Sneak Attack was very powerful (and was the main source of damage), but it couldn't always be pulled off; but in 4E Sneak Attack is just a good bonus (once a round) to already solid attacks, and it's easier to get.

*Stealth just gives a Rogue the use of his extra-damage class-feature-- the other strikers, Warlock and Ranger, can use theirs automatically w/o a skill check but w/a minor action.  The Ranger/Warlock can only pick those closest to them, the rogue can only use his on those whose perception he beat.  

*A melee rogue can flank for CA most every round, a ranged-rogue can hide for CA most every round.  Sounds balanced.  

*Concealment is -2 to hit, and Full Concealment is -5.  That's a +3 to the Rogue's defenses.  Pretty nice, but if the Rogue hides then attacks, he won't get that advantage for the following round.  

*Being hidden or invisible give no bonus to hit.  


From all this, I just don't see Stealth as broken.  It's easy, yes, but it's supposed to be easy.  A sniper that hides every single round, is just doing his job; there's no need to nerf him.  

The rogue is awesome at hiding; let him be awesome.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

Perhaps maybe do a few playthrough with all rules being literal. I guess only after collecting enough emperical evidence should I really make an issue for or against this C/C stealth issue. I think really a DM will decide how much any given area will have Cover and Concealment. If your allies give you Cover, I think it will be only for a short while, because so many things shift and move around in combat, one or two shifts later and a rogue would have to move completely to the other side of his friends, and thats assuming the creature lives that long if your allies are smart and focusing fire down targets.

To quote Dudley Field Malone "I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me." 

I feel that this holds true here. I think only through our debates on this and through countless points of view shown, rulings on rules, and many unique situations that I would have never thought of has actually let me walk away with a subatantially larger understanding of 4e.

Hope you all enjoy your weekend, will be out of town so relish no more posts from me for a while.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Jun 13, 2008)

A point that  a lot of people are missing is that the rogue needs to succeed in using stealth every round.  Even if he can make an attempt every round, he's not gonna always succeed.

Even if he has +12 to his Stealth check and the foe has +0 perception, the fact that it's an Opposed Check means that there's a chance he won't be able to use Stealth that round.

Against foes with good perception modifiers, he might be better off going for the flank.

So yeah, Rogues might do a couple points more damage than Rangers and Locks, but the fact that they have to work at it to get CA, means that for some rounds, they'll be doing significantly less, balancing things out in the long run.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jun 13, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> Reading Chameleon, I'm starting to think that's exactly what it was intended for! It's also the case that for the rogue to keep up with the other strikers in damage potential, he needs to be sneak-attacking at least every other round.
> 
> Again, I'm not arguing whether it's broken-as-written, I'm arguing the rules as written. And frankly, it may not turn out to be as broken as well all think after repeated play. I'm more annoyed that a rogue can hide in melee to get CA just because there's a tree in his square, or it's raining. This ranged stuff, it may be broken, maybe not. Bad guys get to move around too. (With Chameleon, though . . . jeez.)




Funny you should mention Chameleon. This power clearly states that you are not hidden if at the end of your round you no longer have cover/concealment.  Sounds kinda like plain old stealth to me.  If you can just re-stealth if you have cover/concealment in combat anyways, why would you even need this power?  Keep in mind that it clearly states you are just hidden, you are still not invis and if you just attacked someone they are aware of you.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 13, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> Let's stick to the ranged rogue, which does a little less, as he's the guy most likely to be sneak-attacking every round.
> 
> A 1st level goblin rogue with the standard build (16 in Dex, 14 in Chr, +2 to each) and the Backstabber feat is doing 2d8+d6+7 points of damage, attacking against AC, or 2d8+d6+4 damage against Reflex.
> 
> ...




The rogue can only use Deft Strike or Sly Flourish At-Wills w/a ranged weapon, both of which target AC.

The Ranger can use twin strike (and should).  No stat to damage, but any enhancement or misc. bonuses get applied for each hit.  

I haven't compared all the encounters and dailies yet, but good powers are just as important as raw damage from at-wills.  I'm not saying the rogue isn't the best of the strikers damage-wise, but the classes still seem pretty comparable to me.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> The rogue can only use Deft Strike or Sly Flourish At-Wills w/a ranged weapon, both of which target AC.




Nope, both are ranged or melee. 

2nd level goblin rogue is going to be using his rapier and doing 3d8+7  when attacking vs AC. That's 20.5 damage on a hit. The twin-striking ranger is doing less damage even if he hits TWICE. Sorry Mr. Ranger but you kinda bite . . .

EDIT -- meh, thinking about this a little more, I don't know I'm 100% sure that the ranger *completely* bites. He's doing maybe 20% less damage against the average foe, but that's not an outrageous disadvantage. Figuring the ranger is doing 2d10+d8 with two hits, and if he only hits once, the nice thing is he still gets that d8, so you can't do a pure comparison of 15.5 damage for the ranger with 20.5 damage for the rogue -- turns out that's only applicable if you hit every round. 

On the other hand, in a little playtesting combat I was doing last week, Grisgra the 5th level Goblin Rogue was hitting bad guys on a '3' sometimes (+4 to hit with Dex, +3 Rapier, +2 level, +2 magic on rapier, +2 CA means +13 to hit), against most foes I'd guess a good rogue with CA hits 75% of the time.


----------



## AsmodeusDM (Jun 13, 2008)

Chameleon is there for the following scenerio:

I'm a rogue behind a staute, I'm hidden.

An enemy on his turn walks round the pillar so that there's no cover between us.

Normally I would automatically lose my Hidden status.

But chameleon (imm. interrupt) let's me stay stealthed for another round even though my enemy(s) have clear LOS to me.

After that one round...well it's back to normal.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

Otterscrubber said:
			
		

> Funny you should mention Chameleon. This power clearly states that you are not hidden if at the end of your round you no longer have cover/concealment.  Sounds kinda like plain old stealth to me.  If you can just re-stealth if you have cover/concealment in combat anyways, why would you even need this power?  Keep in mind that it clearly states you are just hidden, you are still not invis and if you just attacked someone they are aware of you.




Yep, Chameleon is pretty useless under your bizarre interpretation of the rules and unaware /= hidden. Under the rules as-written, however, Chameleon is ridiculously strong, allowing the rogue to remain hidden once the minions walk past the fighter that the rogue was hiding behind. The rogue just has to find cover/hide again on his turn.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 13, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> Nope, both are ranged or melee.
> 
> 2nd level goblin rogue is going to be using his rapier and doing 3d8+7  when attacking vs AC. That's 20.5 damage on a hit. The twin-striking ranger is doing less damage even if he hits TWICE. Sorry Mr. Ranger but you kinda bite . . .




I thought we were only comparing ranged builds?  You were talking about the rogue attacking Ref Defense --using piercing strike I assume, which is melee only.  Thus the sniper can't attack Reflex.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 13, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> Yep, Chameleon is pretty useless under your bizarre interpretation of the rules and unaware /= hidden. Under the rules as-written, however, Chameleon is ridiculously strong, allowing the rogue to remain hidden once the minions walk past the fighter that the rogue was hiding behind. The rogue just has to find cover/hide again on his turn.




But he can only do it once an encounter. Using a 6th level power.  A wizard can dimension door at that level.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> I thought we were only comparing ranged builds?  You were talking about the rogue attacking Ref Defense --using piercing strike I assume, which is melee only.  Thus the sniper can't attack Reflex.




oooh, okay, you mean Piercing Strike -- and you're right, can't use that at ranged! Makes it a little tougher to compare the rogue and warlock, rogue is doing 33% more damage per hit, but hitting less -- how much less, obv creature dependent. I think the average Fort defense is about 3 worse than AC -- on the other hand, the rogue gets +3 proficiency to his attacks . . . meaning it may make sense to compare the 19.5 damage for the rogue against the 15 damage for the Warlock. Ouch.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> But he can only do it once an encounter. Using a 6th level power.  A wizard can dimension door at that level.




Nope, Chameleon is at-will.


----------



## Volabit (Jun 13, 2008)

double post.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 13, 2008)

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> A point that  a lot of people are missing is that the rogue needs to succeed in using stealth every round.  Even if he can make an attempt every round, he's not gonna always succeed.
> 
> Even if he has +12 to his Stealth check and the foe has +0 perception, the fact that it's an Opposed Check means that there's a chance he won't be able to use Stealth that round.
> 
> ...




Unless you use passive checks, which I believe is meant to be the standard method even if it is a little unclear in the rules.  Then the rogue will succeed more often, esp. against monsters w/low perception (minions).  I don't think that's bad.  But some monster's will have other senses that negate stealth, so it won't always work-- tactics required.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 13, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> Nope, Chameleon is at-will.



Oh, you're right.  I'm blind.  

That is pretty bad ass.  However, it does reinforce my point about the designers wanting stealth to be a constant tactic.

This power also looks like good way for a melee rogue to jump out of the shadows to get his CA.


----------



## Forrester (Jun 13, 2008)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> Oh, you're right.  I'm blind.
> 
> That is pretty bad ass.  However, it does reinforce my point about the designers wanting stealth to be a constant tactic.
> 
> ...


----------



## LEHaskell (Jun 13, 2008)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> Oh, you're right.  I'm blind.
> 
> That is pretty bad ass.  However, it does reinforce my point about the designers wanting stealth to be a constant tactic.
> 
> This power also looks like good way for a melee rogue to jump out of the shadows to get his CA.




It's an immediate interrupt -- can't use it on his turn.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 13, 2008)

A melee rogue can sneak attack every round if he has someone to flank with.  A ranged rogue can sneak attack every round if he has cover/concealment.  There's no crit hits/fails in skills... if you roll a 1 with +12 stealth, then you have a sneak attack against +3 Perception, period.  I myself have issue with this--not even because of whether or not sneak attack is overpowering every round (I don't really think it is) but what is the incentive to actually melee?  The only requirement to be a "sniper rogue" is to have a high Dexterity, be trained in Stealth, and carry a lot of bolts/shurikens.

I think it is way too easy to regain combat advantage through stealth mid-combat under the intended rules.  On top of that, the exact definition of what you have to do is not clear.  One CSR says you can "stealthily attack".  One says you have to move to a new square.  One says you have to end in cover/concealment, another says you have to start in it, another says the whole move has to be in it.  It's a messy, undefined blob--and that's why I don't like it.  Most of 4E combat is clearly defined, without grey areas.  Stealth is not one of those aspects.

For a rule that's going to apparently apply to every character trained in Stealth every single round, I don't like it being so loosely defined.

As stated, plenty of people have stated they have no problem with a rogue sneak attacking from range every single turn.  I respect their opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that I have huge issues with it being tactically smarter to NOT go _backstab_ people.  You know, like _rogues used to_.

I'm also not wild about my party's ranger adding ANOTHER +2 to her hit rolls any turn that her stealth roll is over a 1.  Apparently WotC has decided they need to regroup and talk about it too, because the CSRs have stopped answering this question, and started a canned response of "We've taken this to the rules guys for an official errata."

So really I think all we can do is say, "We know this much is intended, we know this part is a grey area, and we know how we each feel about it."

Xorn dislikes the current Stealth As Intended™.  Note that requiring a Bluff or Total Concealment/Superior Cover doesn't make it terribly harder, but it does mean that it's not _easier_ to sneak attack _every round_ from range than melee.


----------



## Dan'L (Jun 13, 2008)

Personally, I take any CSA response with a heavy dosage of salt.  They're typically hired for their abilities to be personable to irate and confused strangers than their understanding of the whys and wherefores of a company's products, policies, and intentions.  Often times their only training is to be handed the same material you have to read over.  And chances are, you have more experience with the game than Joe Paycheck in customer service anyway, and neither you nor they have the word on what R&D fully intended -- which is likely why your CSA gave you the note that they were passing your concerns on.  So, as much as you like to throw around "Stealth as Intended," I think I'll take that phrase with an equal helping of cardiac risk.  Your repeating the label doesn't make it true. YMMV, obviously.

As far as allies granting concealment, there is no mention of this in the description of "Line of Sight" on page 273.  As noted, it is an exclusion-based system, and while many things are listed as blocking line of sight, there is no exclusion given for allies hindering line of sight.  I would interpret this to mean that allies do _not_ block line of sight, and that they therefore provide no concealment for a stealth check because the enemy can clearly see you.

That said, you are correct that there are still plenty of other ways to obtain concealment and cover on 4e battlefields.  And I wouldn't want to use static checks for it either, which still puts you at lots of die rolls.  Consider trying to discourage ranged stealth with in-game villain tactics rather than house-ruling the system; seems to me this would be the most fun solution.

And personally, I never understood why ANY non-fighter would desire to be up on the front line of combat.  First rule of survival: don't get hit.  What's WRONG with having a Rogue that doesn't want to risk his neck so needlessly?  You say it likes it's a bad thing.  Seriously, I'm playing a 4e Rogue now, and have no qualms staying to the back doing ranged damage, even without the extra 2d6 from Sneak Attack every round.  Let the meat shields soften them up, and any that get through, well THEN you can flank-n-stab while they try to take down your 'casters ;P

Or are rogues just another squishy to you, and that's all they should be?

A better question is:  what are a Fighter's incentives to stand up front taking all that abuse while the rest of the party lobs in damage that pisses the bad guys off enough that they pound on you harder?  Because, yeah they're useful to the party, but they're also the most prone to PC death, from what I've seen.  I'm not sure that this is a question to be answered with a game system, it's probably more of a role-playing solution.

-Dan'L

-Dan'L


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 13, 2008)

LEHaskell said:
			
		

> It's an immediate interrupt -- can't use it on his turn.



 I really am blind.



			
				Xorn said:
			
		

> ...but what is the incentive to actually melee?



More options for melee powers?  But this goes beyond rogues and stealth and even this edition- ranged attackers always have the advantage of not getting hit as often.  The only thing that really keeps it in check is that some of the party have to melee, otherwise the ranged guys get overrun and can't do anything.  



			
				Xorn said:
			
		

> It's a messy, undefined blob--and that's why I don't like it.  Most of 4E combat is clearly defined, without grey areas.  Stealth is not one of those aspects. For a rule that's going to apparently apply to every character trained in Stealth every single round, I don't like it being so loosely defined.



Agreed.  It lacks clarity and is spread out all over instead of having one nice section dealing with all things stealthy.  



			
				Xorn said:
			
		

> As stated, plenty of people have stated they have no problem with a rogue sneak attacking from range every single turn.  I respect their opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that I have huge issues with it being tactically smarter to NOT go _backstab_ people.  You know, like _rogues used to_.



Sure.  If it annoys you, change it.  Everybody has different tastes and play-styles.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Jun 13, 2008)

The Grackle said:
			
		

> Unless you use passive checks, which I believe is meant to be the standard method even if it is a little unclear in the rules.  Then the rogue will succeed more often, esp. against monsters w/low perception (minions).  I don't think that's bad.  But some monster's will have other senses that negate stealth, so it won't always work-- tactics required.




The rules are extremely clear.  You don't use their passive perceptions during combat.

Stealth is specified as an Opposed Role.

That has specific meaning with regards to skills.


----------



## BWS (Jun 13, 2008)

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> The rules are extremely clear.  You don't use their passive perceptions during combat.



PHB p.281, "Targeting What You Can't See," disagrees with you. "Opposed" doesn't mean that both parties actually need to roll.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jun 13, 2008)

It does kinda say that under the definition of "opposed" though.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 13, 2008)

I'm in agreement with The Grackle actually, I think passive perception is the intention in the rules.  (One of the viewpoints I've changed on.)  Just to avoid a stupid amount of dice rolling, if anything.

And just to be clear, I use the phrase Stealth As Intended™ to mean, "WotC intended for stealth to be usable during combat to grant combat advantage."  When I spoke to a CSR on the phone, he put me on hold and went to ask a rules guy.  While they give varying answers on the minutia of the check, they all consistently stated that it's intended to grant combat advantage, and only requires normal cover/concealment, or a successful bluff.  It's just a lot quicker to type Stealth As Intended™, and funnier, in my opinion.  Speaking of funny, I give you:

The Bleu RAWja
Halfling Rogue (1)
STR 11 | CON 10 | DEX 20 | INT 8 | WIS 10 | CHA 16
AC 17 (19 vs OA) | FORT 10 | REF 17 | WILL 13
Backstabber (+2d8 sneak attack)
Stealth +12
Sly Flourish +8 vs AC (shuriken) 1d6+8
Equipment: Leather armor, a dagger, and so many shurikens... well... too many.
Hell.  Yes.  This is my Stealth As Intended™ rogue.    He wears an red velvet cape and a jeweled turban with a feather.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 13, 2008)

Dan'L said:
			
		

> Personally, I take any CSA response with a heavy dosage of salt.



Yeah, those guys sometimes give bunk answers.  I prefer getting lots of opinions off ENWorld then deciding for myself.  



			
				Dan'L said:
			
		

> As far as allies granting concealment, there is no mention of this in the description of "Line of Sight" on page 273.  As noted, it is an exclusion-based system, and while many things are listed as blocking line of sight, there is no exclusion given for allies hindering line of sight.  I would interpret this to mean that allies do _not_ block line of sight, and that they therefore provide no concealment for a stealth check because the enemy can clearly see you.




Something can have concealment or cover and still be in your line of sight.  (page 273, example of goblin in light fog) Allies grant cover, "blocking" line of sight-- blocking meaning interfering w/LOS not totally eliminating it; they can still see you.  Cover let's you make a stealth check to hide.  If you lose cover/conceal, the LOS becomes unblocked, you are no longer hidden, and the creature automatically sees you. If you have total concealment or superior cover, the creature can't see you.  I assume that hidden/total concealment/unseen/No LOS are all the same thing.



			
				Dan'L said:
			
		

> That said, you are correct that there are still plenty of other ways to obtain concealment and cover on 4e battlefields.  And I wouldn't want to use static checks for it either, which still puts you at lots of die rolls.  Consider trying to discourage ranged stealth with in-game villain tactics rather than house-ruling the system; seems to me this would be the most fun solution.
> 
> And personally, I never understood why ANY non-fighter would desire to be up on the front line of combat.  First rule of survival: don't get hit.  What's WRONG with having a Rogue that doesn't want to risk his neck so needlessly?  You say it likes it's a bad thing.  Seriously, I'm playing a 4e Rogue now, and have no qualms staying to the back doing ranged damage, even without the extra 2d6 from Sneak Attack every round.  Let the meat shields soften them up, and any that get through, well THEN you can flank-n-stab while they try to take down your 'casters ;P



What's cool is a rogue can do both.  Mix it up in melee and then if he gets hurt, fall back and use ranged attacks.  A ranger really has either a melee/STR build or a DEX/ranged build.  I think the rogue's versatility is a better argument for it's superiority to a ranger/warlock.  



			
				Dan'L said:
			
		

> A better question is:  what are a Fighter's incentives to stand up front taking all that abuse while the rest of the party lobs in damage that pisses the bad guys off enough that they pound on you harder?



Ummm?  Somebody's gotta do it?


----------



## cdrcjsn (Jun 13, 2008)

BWS said:
			
		

> PHB p.281, "Targeting What You Can't See," disagrees with you. "Opposed" doesn't mean that both parties actually need to roll.




That's dealing with invisible opponents or creatures with full concealment/cover.

During combat, if you want to hide and use Stealth in preparation for an attack, it's an opposed roll.  It's part of the Stealth check description.  In fact, it's the very first bullet point under the mechanics of stealth.


----------



## Sanzuo (Jun 13, 2008)

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> During combat, if you want to hide and use Stealth in preparation for an attack, it's an opposed roll.  It's part of the Stealth check description.  In fact, it's the very first bullet point under the mechanics of stealth.




I agree with this.  At least I think it's RAI™.


----------



## The Grackle (Jun 13, 2008)

Arbitrary said:
			
		

> It does kinda say that under the definition of "opposed" though.



Yeah, it's confusing.  The "Opposed Checks" section describes two active checks: d20+mods vs d20+mods.  

But then under Passive checks it says:
"When you’re not actively using a skill, you’re assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill."  so unless you spend a standard action to look, your perception check is 10+mods vs the stealth-ers d20+mods.  

*** 
What's weird is that it takes a standard action to look around for a hidden rogue(186), but only a minor action to guess his direction and square(281).

***
Also, Wizards will be great against stealthing opponents, b/c they can drop light (minor action) into dimly lit areas where rogues might be hiding in the shadows, and their AOE attacks ignore concealment.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jun 13, 2008)

There are constant contradictions.  It's honestly frustrating.


----------



## Sanzuo (Jun 14, 2008)

I imagine before too long there will be an official announcement from Wizards regarding this, there will be a "well that settles that" moment and we will all be laughing about this.

Right?


----------



## Xorn (Jun 14, 2008)

Yup.  The last several queries to CSRs all get the same, "We're working on errata." response.  They aren't even trying to field the question anymore.  I find this encouraging.  And until then, I'm not going to continue guessing how they intended to use the rules as intended.  (I know stealth is supposed to be able to offer CA in combat, but it's still a guessing game as to if you have to move, can you "stealthily" attack, etc.)


----------



## Sanzuo (Jun 14, 2008)

I think it would be fine if they said "you may only re-stealth under total concealment/cover and not partial."  IE when the enemy is not looking right at you.  Seems like the easiest fix.


----------



## WOLead (Jun 14, 2008)

> Customer (WOLead ****)	06/13/2008 07:45 AM
> 1)Does Shadow Walk's Concealment allow you to make a Stealth Check?
> 
> 2)If 1) is true, then if a Warlock has successfully hidden himself in his concealment, can he attack then move 6 to reroll the Stealth check to hide again? Its assumed he would take the -5 penalty for moving more then 2 squares without the Secret Stride feat.
> ...






> Response (Support Agent)	06/13/2008 03:35 PM
> Greetings,
> 
> 1. Yes, you can make a stealth check after using Shadow Walk.
> ...




Just posting the response here, since I had 3 questions that dealt with Stealth in Combat for a Warlock.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 14, 2008)

Perception: No action required—either you notice something or you don’t. Your DM usually uses your passive Perception check result. If you want to use the skill actively, you need to take a *standard action* or spend 1 minute listening or searching, depending on the task.
(Emphasis Mine,p.186)

So, once something hides, you need to use a standard action in order to spot it again. So, the first stealth is against passive Perception, and then the perceiver is free to use a standard action to spot the hider.

I doubt the 40 rolls a round will happen because why would everything be wasting their standard actions to spot a stealthing creature? If the stealther is the only combatant, I'm sure those standard actions will be used to run up to the place where they saw the stealther jump into. Otherwise, they will ignore him, as it should be, to follow the idea of the sneaky rogue coming in and out of the shadows.

Regrettably, I didn't read all of the pages of the topic so I don't know if this was addressed. I apologize ahead of time.


----------



## grolch (Jun 14, 2008)

Extrapolating a bit, but under the stealth rules:
 ...Combat Advantage against a target that isn't *aware* of you.

stealth (p. 188), Cover and Concealment (p. 280)
My take on it:
looking at the attacking invalidates stealth, I would rule that after an attack hit or miss, the target is aware of you, thereby denying you to gain CA from stealth, and I would deny it if you failed a stealth check with Superior Cover or Total Concealment. Perception is all directions in combat, so keeping an eye on where that arrow came out of the blue isn't impossible. What you do get from making the pop up attacks presented here, is the inability of the opponent to target you with melee or ranged powers, but not area or close.
 What you get from hiding is an upgrade to the Total Concealment features (see the Targeting what you can't see rule), which isn't the same as gaining the invisiblity feature (which always grant combat advantage).

 Looking at the rogue utility powers involving stealth they are all move actions or related to move actions (a SA is possible with chameleon for one round, but hereafter you're noticed).
 I would probably use the pinpointing rules under Total Concealment/ Superior Cover to let someone try to find out where the attacks are coming from.

Totally unrelated, but from my veiwpoint it fits the Rogue as a melee class with ranged options as an opener or a defensive option.


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 14, 2008)

Dan'L said:
			
		

> As far as allies granting concealment, there is no mention of this in the description of "Line of Sight" on page 273.  As noted, it is an exclusion-based system, and while many things are listed as blocking line of sight, there is no exclusion given for allies hindering line of sight.  I would interpret this to mean that allies do _not_ block line of sight, and that they therefore provide no concealment for a stealth check because the enemy can clearly see you.
> 
> -Dan'L
> 
> -Dan'L




I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall with how many times I've said this in this thread.  Allies do not block your line of sight.  They do block your enemies line of sight giving you cover.  Just as your enemies block your line of sight from their allies behind them granding them ranged cover.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 14, 2008)

Wow, that CSR response contradicts previous CSRs and the PHB, as well.  Since you don't START in cover/concealment, you would have to move (gaining shadow walk), then move again to use stealth.  Unless you "stealthily" attack, which some CSRs say is possible, others say it's not.  /shrug

Incidentally, while I was setting up an adventure and reading over the MM tactics for a halfling slinger:

"Halfling slingers like to set ambushes, using the Stealth skill to gain combat advantage and their sniper power to remain hidden. Once revealed, halfling slingers take cover and bombard enemies with sling stones from a safe distance."

I find it interesting that the tactics specifically mention using stealth to gain combat advantage, but ONCE REVEALED they just take cover and keep attacking from range.  There is no mention of using Stealth ONCE REVEALED, even though they felt that the use of stealth before combat needed mention.  Heh.


----------



## Tuft (Jun 14, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> Yup.  The last several queries to CSRs all get the same, "We're working on errata." response.  They aren't even trying to field the question anymore.  I find this encouraging.  And until then, I'm not going to continue guessing how they intended to use the rules as intended.  (I know stealth is supposed to be able to offer CA in combat, but it's still a guessing game as to if you have to move, can you "stealthily" attack, etc.)





Is that on just anything related to stealth, or on any CSR questions?


----------



## Xorn (Jun 14, 2008)

I'm just talking about questions regarding the mechanics from Stealth.  I'll wager they've had a big enough flood now that they have to get some concrete errata.  I've been reading through the MM today though, and checking the tactics on generally "sneaky" creatures, and it's amusing.

There are several mentions of "they will use their stealth to surprise/gain combat advantage" and then specific mention of "after they are revealed" they will continue to attack from range.  Absolutely no mention of using stealth during that period.  The more I read the MM the more I like "avoids notice" with my interpretation.

It's not like it's that hard to get total concealment or superior cover (both of which remove you from sight) then stealthily move to a location you can attack with CA from.  But you likely won't be able to do it every round.  Maybe I just like that part of 3.5 too much.

(In 3.5 you could not hide if someone was looking at you without using bluff, or superior cover/total concealment--because all three scenarios made you impossible to see, enabling you to stealth again.  And any attempt to hide that wasn't combined with another action was considered a move action.)


----------



## Brokenkingdom (Jun 18, 2008)

*wow...really?*

Stealth rules are NOT as complicated/broken as everyone seems to think.

In combat anytime you have cover OR concealment from ALL enemies you may make a stealth check. This stealth check is opposed by ALL enemies' PASSIVE PERCEPTION checks. If your stealth check does NOT beat ALL enemies' PASSIVE PERCEPTION check then you do NOT stealth. 

This would be as though one creature noticed you trying to hide and yelled out to its comrades or drew attention to you in some way/shape/form.

As long as you maintain cover OR concealment from ALL enemies you remain stealthed. After you win a stealth check creatures are allowed to make a perception check on their turns as a standard action against your stealth check. You lose stealth if any creature notices you (by having NEITHER concealment/cover) as per before with the yelling or by a successful perception check. 

(in certain circumstances a DM can decide if that is appropriate ie: if the creature cannot yell/signal in anyway your DM may decide to allow you to remain stealthed against the other creatures)

Allies grant you concleament ie: standing behind an friend would make you harder to see. Enemies do not grant concealment for you ie: the enemy would move slightly so another enemy could get a clear view. Enemies DO grant concealment for other enemies ie: see the reason allies grant you concealment.

Outside of battle if you attempt to sneak up on something or perform an action stealthily while creatures are around you make a stealth check with the appropriate penalty ie: walking, talking quietly etc. against the passive perception of any creatures reasonably able to notice you.

Cheers.

Also if you trace a line from ANY part of the square you are currently in to ANY part of the square the enemy is in and it touches ANYTHING that is NOT another enemy, you are granted cover/concealment. Enemies NEVER grant you cover/concealment from other enemies unless they are dead and you are hiding behind a rotting pile of them.

SUPER EDIT: Do NOT confuse cover and concealment as being one and the same. They are two seperate entities that play seperate roles. COVER means something makes it more difficult for area/close effects to hit you just as one would imagine hiding behind a big rock might deter some area of effect damage. CONCEALMENT means the enemy cannot get a clear look at you as in if you were in a light brush, fog or even hiding behind a friend. Also my spelling is god awful.


----------



## Blacksmithking (Jun 18, 2008)

Can my dragonborn rogue stealth if he stands behind my halfling paladin in the middle of a battle? Do enemies just forget the dragonborn is there?

Can my rogue carry a large wooden block, "The Concealer," drop it at his feet in an adjacent square, and then claim he can stealth?

Can my warlock stealth by using his shadow walk as concealment? Why don't the monsters pay attention to the misty, shadowy, swirly warlock-shaped object in the middle of the room? If this was intended for warlocks, why isn't stealth on the class skill list?

The stealth rules don't work for me. Stealth should allow you to bypass an encounter (sneak past guards), or position yourself going into an encounter (sneak up to the kobold king for a backstab). Once you attack, you should be done with stealth for the encounter.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 18, 2008)

Brokenkingdom said:
			
		

> In combat anytime you have cover OR concealment from ALL enemies you may make a stealth check.



Where in the PHB does it say this? If you attempt a stealth attack against a target, what matters is the target's perception check, not any other monster's. A stealth check is made in conjunction with an action you are attempting to perform stealthily.



> As long as you maintain cover OR concealment from ALL enemies you remain stealthed. After you win a stealth check creatures are allowed to make a perception check on their turns as a standard action against your stealth check.



Again, where does it say this? Stealth is associated with actions. It is the action a player attempts stealthily that prompts a DC check, not simply "being stealthed", which is a 3e concept that doesn't apply to 4e. Stealth isn't modal, it's a method.



> Allies grant you concleament ie: standing behind an friend would make you harder to see.



The PHB indicates allies grant cover (physically blocking ranged attacks); not concealment.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 18, 2008)

Blacksmithking said:
			
		

> The stealth rules don't work for me. Stealth should allow you to bypass an encounter (sneak past guards), or position yourself going into an encounter (sneak up to the kobold king for a backstab). Once you attack, you should be done with stealth for the encounter.



All three are valid uses of stealth. Using cover or concealment allows a ranged attacker to gain Combat Advantage, because the target cannot sufficiently anticipate the timing or source location of the attacks. 

This actually promotes more tactical behavior on the part of ranged attackers, encouraging them to make use of terrain features to hide from targets and get the attack bonus from Combat Advantage. P280: "combat advantage ... when a defender is ... unable to see the attacker/unaware of you"


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 19, 2008)

Brokenkingdom said:
			
		

> In combat anytime you have cover OR concealment from ALL enemies you may make a stealth check. This stealth check is opposed by ALL enemies' PASSIVE PERCEPTION checks. If your stealth check does NOT beat ALL enemies' PASSIVE PERCEPTION check then you do NOT stealth.
> 
> This would be as though one creature noticed you trying to hide and yelled out to its comrades or drew attention to you in some way/shape/form.




Why would calling out to your comrades allow them to see or hear something that they *cannot* see or hear?

"Hey where did that rogue go!? I can't see her!"

"Hark, friend, I see her in that bush!"

"Oh, hey, I see her now too! W00t!"

I'm pretty sure the rule is whoever's check you beat can't see you. You can't just have the person with the highest check make everyone else's check for them. It doesn't make any sense.



> Can my rogue carry a large wooden block, "The Concealer," drop it at his feet in an adjacent square, and then claim he can stealth?




Hey, it worked for Solid Snake.


----------



## keterys (Jun 19, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> The PHB indicates allies grant cover (physically blocking ranged attacks); not concealment.




And only WRT to ranged attacks, so that does nothing for allowing stealth.


----------



## wocky (Jun 19, 2008)

Actually one of my main problems with the stealth rules is that, although I believe stealth to be subjective (you can be hiding from some of your enemies but you don't need to be hiding from all), hiding usually requires standing in a very specific position and/or being still... any of which would ordinarily grant combat advantage to any enemies you're not hiding from.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 19, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> And only WRT to ranged attacks, so that does nothing for allowing stealth.



Right. I believe it's intended that characters can make stealth attacks in combat from behind cover or concealment; but that hiding behind other players to do so is *not* intended. The halfling playing peekaboo from behind the dragonborn is pushing it.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 19, 2008)

Evan T. (Wizard CSR)
_Can ranged attackers, eg. rogues and rangers, use cover (eg, walls, pillars) or concealment (eg. bushes, darkness) to make stealth attacks during combat? _
*You can make a stealth attempt with any action that you do. So, if you have cover or concealment, you can attempt to hide yourself as part of your attack. If you are successful, then you are given combat advantage against your opponents who can not see you. *

_Is it part of the design intention of 4E that players are encouraged to make use of tactics that can grant Combat Advantage, and using terrain to make stealth attacks is intended and encouraged by the rules?_
*This stealth system was implemented to make cover and concealment useful to players, and make the environment more interactive. *


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 19, 2008)

samursus said:
			
		

> "You can*'t* avoid notice after you have already been noticed. You need to either use a Distraction (via Bluff in combat) or you can't "re-hide". Now if you can achieve Total Cover/Concealment, then your Stealth determines if your enemy's can figure out where to attack, and if they fail to even determine a direction, I'll allow stealth through normal cover/concealment again, but once you have been noticed, Stealth only avoids notice, it doesn't erase it."




You don't need TOTAL Concealment/Cover, just regular Concealment/Cover.  So if you are fighting in fog for example, you could be hidden, make an attack (revealing yourself in the process), then re-hide.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 19, 2008)

Further answer from Joe (Wizards CSR) 19/06/2008
_So the core question here that I would like to confirm is: each time a player attempts a stealth attack during combat (which could be each round for each stealther), the player's stealth check DC is:
a) the passive perception of their target (since this is the only monster they need to be hidden against)
b) an active perception roll for the target (requiring a roll from both player and DM, each turn)
c) the passive perception of all monsters in range, whether they're involved in this attack or not
d) the active perception checks of all monsters in range (requiring multiple rolls from the DM each turn)_

*The Stealth check is opposed by a Perception check from each observer. To gain combat advantage on the attack, the attacker only needs to succeed vs the target, though the DM can of course play around with this. Unless characters are actively being perceptive, use the passive value.
The DM will always make the final ruling on any issue that arises.*


----------



## Ziana (Jun 19, 2008)

bleh dup
Mod: please delete this dup.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 19, 2008)

oh come on
Mod: please delete this dup.


----------



## wocky (Jun 19, 2008)

The CSR have been contradicting themselves and each other... I don't value their rulings above anything I can interpret myself from the core books with some common sense applied. I hope the designers come up with an article or FAQ answers that shed some light on how this is supposed to work balance and gameplay-wise.


----------



## Brokenkingdom (Jun 20, 2008)

*Riposte!*



> [In combat anytime you have cover OR concealment from ALL enemies you may make a stealth check.]
> 
> "Where in the PHB does it say this? If you attempt a stealth attack against a target, what matters is the target's perception check, not any other monster's. A stealth check is made in conjunction with an action you are attempting to perform stealthily."




P.188

Cover or Concealment: Unless a creature is distracted,
you must have cover against or concealment
from the creature to make a Stealth check. You
have to maintain cover or concealment to remain
unnoticed. If a creature has unblocked line of sight
to you (that is, you lack any cover or concealment),
the creature automatically sees you (no Perception
check required).

A stealth check is made in conjunction with ANY action. FREE action is considered an action therefore by way of simple logic we can deduce that you may make a stealth check when you have cover/concealment. The "ALL creatures" part comes into play under the idea that if a kobold was creeping up behind your friend and he/she didn't notice it but you did, you would shout "Hey buddy watch out behind you" effectively making your friend "aware" of the sneaking enemy which in turn means it is no longer stealthed from your friend. As stated it is up to the DM's discretion to allow/disallow this depending on the situation. See the circumstance I had mentioned before.

-----------------------------------------------------------



> [As long as you maintain cover OR concealment from ALL enemies you remain stealthed. After you win a stealth check creatures are allowed to make a perception check on their turns as a standard action against your stealth check.]
> 
> "Again, where does it say this? Stealth is associated with actions. It is the action a player attempts stealthily that prompts a DC check, not simply "being stealthed", which is a 3e concept that doesn't apply to 4e. Stealth isn't modal, it's a method."




P.186

Perception: No action required—either you notice
something or you don’t. Your DM usually uses your
passive Perception check result. If you want to use the
skill actively, you need to take a STANDARD action or
spend 1 minute listening or searching, depending on
the task.
 Opposed Check: Perception vs. Stealth when trying
to spot or hear a creature using Stealth. Your check
might be modified by distance or if you’re listening
through a door or a wall (see the table).

&

P.188

Stealth: Part of whatever action you are trying to
perform stealthily.
 Opposed Check: Stealth vs. Perception (see the
table for modifiers to your check). If there are multiple
observers, your Stealth check is opposed by
each observer’s Perception check

[on]Success: You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from
view. If you later attack or shout, you’re no longer
hidden.

Right there. Again I state ALL enemies for reasons mentioned earlier and as ALWAYS it is up to your DM. 

------------------------------------------------------------



> [Allies grant you concealment ie: standing behind an friend would make you harder to see.]
> 
> The PHB indicates allies grant cover (physically blocking ranged attacks); not concealment.




Touché.

Regardless, allies still grant cover and cover is still grounds for a sleath check and my statement stands, though thank you for pointing out that mistypen discrepancy.

-------------------------------------------------------------



> "Can my dragonborn rogue stealth if he stands behind my halfling paladin in the middle of a battle? Do enemies just forget the dragonborn is there?"




Please exercise common sense in all responses. This situation would obviously be up to your DM's discretion. This is D&D after all, there are limitless situations one can find themselves in and it is up to the DM to allow or disallow certain aspects or bend certain rulings per situation. However unless the enemy creatures are truly dimwitted nothing 'forgets' you are there, they simply cannot get a clear look at you granting you a CHANCE to hide. Place a ferret on the floor and look away for one eighth of a SECOND and you will understand. You do not FORGET the ferret is around but I promise you unless you roll one HELL of a perception check you won't find it without a thorough search.

-------------------------------------------------------------



> "Can my rogue carry a large wooden block, "The Concealer," drop it at his feet in an adjacent square, and then claim he can stealth?"




Absolutely. If the block is large enough to grant cover (Ie; roughly the size of the character or however large/small the DM sees fit) and it blocks a part of all lines of sight to said character. Just as a character could throw a good sized sack of oil at an enemy and have someone else throw a torch at it, there are no specific RULES for that but you can certainly do it. It's called using your imagination, people seem to have something against it. I must have missed when it became a fault for trying to overcome obstacles creatively in D&D. Though I will say that getting to and walking through a dungeon carrying around a large wooden block is probably not the most effective mode of transportation. As always it comes down to the DM's discretion whether or not you make a "trip and crush your face off" check. Also why would your feet be in an adjacent square that sounds silly and painful. Also, also a more appropriate name would be "The mostly-portable wooden chunk of cover" as it is both more accurate and humorous.

--------------------------------------------------------------



> "Can my warlock stealth by using his shadow walk as concealment? Why don't the monsters pay attention to the misty, shadowy, swirly warlock-shaped object in the middle of the room? If this was intended for warlocks, why isn't stealth on the class skill list?"




Yes, you can absolutely hide in a heavily/lightly obscured square. The monsters DO notice the misty-warlock-shaped-area however as the warlock is concealed they cannot get a clear view of him/her. IE: the whole concept of concealment. If the Warlock makes the stealth check on that action it WILL incur a penalty of -5 for moving more then 2 squares, as per the requirement for shadow walk, on said stealth check against their PASSIVE PERCEPTION. Shadow walk was NOT intended to be used by warlocks to gain stealth advantages. It is obviously intended to grant warlocks a bonus to their defense by way of -2 to hit said warlock. SIDE OPINION: Warlocks (IMO, IMO disclaimer: IMO) are broken at the moment as they are not (yet) pact loyal. This however is an entirely different discussion not meant for this thread (read as: "Do not further discuss this matter in this thread").


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 20, 2008)

Forrester said:
			
		

> A 1st level warlock that changes his quarry to d8 damage is doing (let's max it out) d10+d8+4. A ranger . . . well, they suck, too bored to calculate.
> 
> Even if you assume it's merely an extra 3 damage a round vs the warlock (who gets to attack against Fort), that's a 20% advantage. The ranger is going up against AC, meaning we'd prefer to use the rogue's 19.5 damage as a comparator, which will CRUSH the ranger.



It's a shame you didn't bother to calculate.

The ranger is doing 2d10 + d8 + 8, or 23.5.

Edited to remove some hostile sarcasm.


----------



## WOLead (Jun 20, 2008)

Brokenkingdom said:
			
		

> Yes, you can absolutely hide in a heavily/lightly obscured square. The monsters DO notice the misty-warlock-shaped-area however as the warlock is concealed they cannot get a clear view of him/her. IE: the whole concept of concealment. If the Warlock makes the stealth check on that action it WILL incur a penalty of -5 for moving more then 2 squares, as per the requirement for shadow walk, on said stealth check against their PASSIVE PERCEPTION. Shadow walk was NOT intended to be used by warlocks to gain stealth advantages. It is obviously intended to grant warlocks a bonus to their defense by way of -2 to hit said warlock.




Shadow Walk does not cause the square the Warlock is in to become Obscured.  It causes the Warlock to gain Concealment.  These are two different things.  Obscured squares causes Concealment, but Concealment doesn't cause obscured squares to pop up.  This is further supported by the Warlord's new Pack Master Paragon Path power, Straw Soldiers.  A Martial character power that grants all himself and his allies concealment for as long as he sustains it.  Literally the same concealment that Shadow Walk gives.

My belief is that the Warlock can use Stealth checks with his own Shadow Walk concealment.  It is not a thick 5ftx5ftx5ft cube of smoke floating around the Warlock that says "HERE I AM!"  It makes the Warlock hard to discern from the rest of the field/battleground, whether by SEP, partially rendering invisible, chameleon effect, blurring of form, ect.  No where does Shadow Walk say the square you are in becomes Obscured by smoke, fog, or such.  It just gives Concealment which is needed for stealth checks.  The challenge is the feats, ability points, and/or equipment you may need to get to actually hide from something, as if it was that easy for a Warlock to hide it would be broken.

The argument of the Shadow Walk concealment that "Its just supposed to give the Warlock -2 to being hit by melee and ranged attacks and not stealth." is getting tiresome.  This is a person's guess, it has no basis in the rules itself.  If I see a CSR or an errata stating otherwise then there is evidence I'll believe, otherwise its the smoke people try to place around a Warlock.  I have not seen a CSR response that goes against the one I received a couple days ago and placed into the "Official Unofficial 4e Rules Faq."

May I ask where people are getting the idea that Smoke/Rain/Immaterial Black Shadows are floating around the square the Warlock is in when he gains Concealment from Shadow Walk?  I want to spot this page in the PHB so I can read it myself.


----------



## Brokenkingdom (Jun 20, 2008)

> Shadow Walk does not cause the square the Warlock is in to become Obscured.




Dually noted.

However from the only THREE times in the ENTIRE PHB that they mention shadow walk (literally "shadow walk" is only in the book 3 times, twice mentioned in passing) the only description of shadow walk pertains to "walking in the shadows". Going by the ONLY description of something that MIGHT pertain to it we are left to ASSUME the squares in which the warlock resides while under concealment are shadowy and thus obscured.

Still, the fact remains that the warlock is under concealment and therefore still allowed to make a stealth check AND if made within the same move action he/she WILL incur a -5 penalty for walking more then 2 squares while attempting to stealth. 

_Super edit go!: As far as I can tell the number of situations that it would make a difference (outside of flavor text) are severely limited. I can only see something like, if the warlock is concealed from shadow walk and a small enough creature ends it's turn inside the same square as said warlock and then someone tried to attack that creature._

And as far as -2 to hit being a defense bonus type dealy, until you provide an ability that garnishes bonuses for the warlock being concealed (From what I can tell there are none, but don't quote me) we can logically come to the conclusion that either they added it in for no reason at all OR that they had added it in as a -2 to hit pseudo-defense bonus. Which would you put YOUR money on? I'd go with the one that makes sense.


----------



## erik_the_guy (Jun 20, 2008)

Using stealth to hide every round and then sneak attacking unsuspecting targets, who might I add are distracted by the rest of the battle. Sounds exactly like a rogue. If you find it to be a balance problem in some encounters, you could always require a minor action for the stealth check (as a house rule), but I don't think it's a huge issue.
Rogues are basically useless without sneak attacks, so one would expect them to use tactics which allow them to sneak attack, this should be encouraged.
Have the enemies adopt counter strategies, like running up to or burning the cover, or seeking cover of their own. It's a fun game.


----------



## WOLead (Jun 20, 2008)

> until you provide an ability that garnishes bonuses for the warlock being concealed



Two that directly helps a Warlock being concealed.
Level 2 Utility, Shadow Veil.  Grants a +5 Bonus to Stealth Check rolls until the end of your next turn.  Level 7 Fey Pact's Mire the Mind's additional Stealth Bonus equal to the Int modifier for only you until the end of the Encounter, while the actual invisibility only lasts until the end of your next turn.  Both of which are Encounter Powers.

The other uses deals with various Teleports, such as a Star Pact with Dark Transport.  You switch places with an enemy after dealing damage, then further teleport away so an enemy can't place you at the spot the victim used to be in with a successful Stealth check.  Almost point-blank range combat with no actual melee abilities, unlike the ranger which has both extreme range with the bow or close combat with two-weapon fighting.

And for the -5 on the Stealth check for moving more then 2 spaces, while Shadow Walk's concealment requires 3 spaces of movement to activate was probably done on purpose on Shadow Walk's part.

Super Edit a Go!:  Don't assume that because Obscured squares causes Concealment and Shadow Walk causes Concealment that Shadow Walk is an Obscured Square.  How does a Warlord with the Pack Master Paragon Path be able to grant Concealment to all his allies, Sustain Minor even?  Does he summon up a fog or smoke that covers just his allies, despite being a Martial character that probably doesn't have Arcane or Divine powers?

Pirate Edit a sail:  Looking through the magical items, Shadowflow armor stands out for comparison.  It grants Stealth bonuses, and has a Daily power that grants Concealment at Paragon levels and Invisibility at Epic levels until the start of your next turn.  When I look at that, I see armor that is supposed to help with Sneaking around and hiding from view and gives a once a day chance of hiding out in the open.  The Concealment gained this way is roughly identical to as if you had a Warlock's Shadow Walk ability for one round.  Not exact due to the difference on when it ends, but close.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 20, 2008)

Brokenkingdom said:
			
		

> The "ALL creatures" part comes into play under the idea that if a kobold was creeping up behind your friend and he/she didn't notice it but you did, you would shout "Hey buddy watch out behind you" effectively making your friend "aware" of the sneaking enemy which in turn means it is no longer stealthed from your friend. As stated it is up to the DM's discretion to allow/disallow this depending on the situation. See the circumstance I had mentioned before.




That is irrelevant to in-combat stealth. Out of combat if any members of a group see the character, they alert the group and combat can ensue. But in combat, all that matters in order to gain combat advantage is that the stealther beats the target's perception check. You don't need to have cover against all enemies in order to make a stealth attack on one.

Joe, Wizard's Customer Service:
*"To gain combat advantage on the attack, the attacker only needs to succeed vs the target"*



> Right there. Again I state ALL enemies for reasons mentioned earlier and as ALWAYS it is up to your DM.



You are again taking verbiage from the PHB that applies to out-of-combat stealth situations and applying it to in-combat stealthing. It doesn't matter if an army of 100 minions can see you behind your cover; if you have cover against a target and beat that target's perception check, you gain combat advantage.

You do not "lose stealth" because one creature sees you during combat. You only have to succeed against the target.

That's an entirely different situation from when the players are depending on not being seen or noticed at all in a non-combat situation: sneaking past the orc camp, stealing the jewels, etc.



> Regardless, allies still grant cover and cover is still grounds for a sleath check and my statement stands, though thank you for pointing out that mistypen discrepancy.




Creatures only grant cover to ranged attacks, not melee. They aren't being meaningfully blocked from observation. It's a limited form of cover that applies to ranged attacks, and isn't equivalent to a wall or other solid object.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 20, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> Creatures only grant cover to ranged attacks, not melee. They aren't being meaningfully blocked from observation. It's a limited form of cover that applies to ranged attacks, and isn't equivalent to a wall or other solid object.




RAW does not distinguish between cover in that sense for stealth however.  It just says you need cover or concealment or distraction to get a stealth check.  An ally is cover, which is all that is necessary to try the stealth check.  That is, unless WOTC clarifies it or erratas it.


----------



## WOLead (Jun 20, 2008)

Oh and a little something for people saying that an ally could warn another so they spot the hidden striker easily.

"He's right in front of you!  Get him!"





Did you have to take a few seconds to see him?  Roll Perception Check.  =-)  The picture even tries to give him away.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 20, 2008)

Brokenkingdom said:
			
		

> A stealth check is made in conjunction with ANY action. FREE action is considered an action therefore by way of simple logic we can deduce that you may make a stealth check when you have cover/concealment. The "ALL creatures" part comes into play under the idea that if a kobold was creeping up behind your friend and he/she didn't notice it but you did, you would shout "Hey buddy watch out behind you" effectively making your friend "aware" of the sneaking enemy which in turn means it is no longer stealthed from your friend. As stated it is up to the DM's discretion to allow/disallow this depending on the situation. See the circumstance I had mentioned before.




This theory begins to break down quickly when you are fighting creatures that cannot speak. Do dire wolves telepathically let one another know when ninjas are afoot?

Furthermore, If I see a ninja, and I say "watch out, Joe, ninja attack!" and Joe's perception was beaten, he can flail his head around all he wants, and try as hard as he'd like to be ready, but he's not ready, because he didn't perceive the attacker. I'm not the least bit surprised by the ninja attack; Joe is.


----------



## Brokenkingdom (Jun 20, 2008)

> This theory begins to break down quickly when you are fighting creatures that cannot speak. Do dire wolves telepathically let one another know when ninjas are afoot?





This was part of my original post.


> (in certain circumstances a DM can decide if that is appropriate ie: if the creature cannot yell/signal in anyway your DM may decide to allow you to remain stealthed against the other creatures)




But remember that having a stealth advantage does not always imply the creature is completely hidden from the world it simply implies it is not being noticed. Whether or not the creature is completely hidden or just unnoticed depends on the situation and your DM. Again say someone was sneaking up behind you and you do not notice. I yell "Hey behind you!" a quick glance reveals a previously unnoticed elderly man with gas encroaching upon you. You are no longer unaware of said dire threat. 

Situations vary by the vary nature of the game, your DM will decide what is and is not appropriate for each situation. There is NO need/way for EVERY single possibility to be accounted for and as players/DM's we are expected to exercise common sense. Unless you have a Wisdom score of 8, then we understand.

Furthermore you do not SEE a ninja. 

Furthermore, furthermore having cover OR concealment is STILL grounds for a stealth check.

It seems to be that the problem isn't within the rules it is within the people who refuse to apply common sense to situations and adjust rulings accordingly. A dragonborn hiding behind a halfling is a common sense/DM decision. If you are upset that your DM will not allow it EVEN THOUGH it says nothing about you not being able to in the core books then leave the group as everyone else probably hates you and does not want you playing with the group anyway.

As for the warlock flavor text and whether or not shadow walk is for a pseudo-defense bonus, and other worldly questions about what it _really_ means to be a *warlock* is irrelevant to this topic. Bottom line shadow walk conceals a warlock and if it makes a stealth check as part of that action it gets -5 on it's check PERIOD. Though agreeably more detail about the shadow walk ability would be helpful. Remeber don't just ASSUME it DOESN'T obscure the square either. Untill a better explanation, best bet would be to let the DM decide. However amazing or expressly lackluster you want the effect to be is also up to your DM.

"The warlock grows dim and glides across the battlefield, melding and weaving into a darkness whose source cannot be defined. The kobold is startled as his previous target is now but a flicker of a shadow dancing about. A semblance of death incarnate"

OR seemingly as you would prefer

"The warlock has concealment now ... hey can I have a Mountain Dew?"


----------



## Ophidimancer (Jun 20, 2008)

Since warlocks deal with powers best left alone, I prefer describing Shadow Walk as the warlock fading away into the Feywild/Hell/The Outer Dark and that the influence seeping into the world through them makes it hard to look straight at them.

"The fey sorceress glides across the battlefield in eerie silence, the mists of the Feywild rising up around her, the sight if it pricking at the eyes so that none are able to look at her fully."

"The mad cultist scuttles deeper into the forgotten library with its scrolls of sinister gibberish.  As he moves, his body seems to become a silhouette and then a hole, a void that threatens to tear your sanity away and feed it, screaming, to some tentacled _thing_  in the dark.  You quickly avert your eyes."

"Ripping his pact blade from the body of a still twitching sacrifice, the man with demon horns stalks toward you.  With every step, his form becomes more indistinct, until all you see is a threatening shadow lit with two points of hellfire."

Of course, that's all just hyperbolic fluff and all have the same mechanical benefits.


----------



## Ophidimancer (Jun 21, 2008)

Re-posting as per Xorn.

Using Bluff in combat allows one to gain Combat Advantage.

Think about that.

That's the equivalent of, "Look over there!"  *STAB*

To me that doesn't seem to imply that getting Combat Advantage is too hard.  It only takes an instant of having your attention off the bluffer.

If at any point the outline of your opponent is broken up or obscured by concealment, I think that can afford them the opportunity to hide their actions (ie use Stealth) and gain Combat Advantage.



			
				Ophidimancer said:
			
		

> _"I've got you this time, you little thief!" cried the warrior, chasing the smaller man through the bazaar.  The thief bolted through an open doorway with nothing but a drape to act as a barrier and the warrior roared in triumph, recognizing the building as one with only one exit.  Right on the heels of the rogue, he pushed his way into the doorway.
> 
> "I've got you now! You can't hide from me in . . . urk!"
> 
> ...




Just my humble opinion, of course.


----------



## Ophidimancer (Jun 22, 2008)

This might be unnecessary thread necromancy if we're simply waiting for a verdict from on high, but:

I'm going to contend the interpretation that one cannot _avoid_ notice once one has been noticed.  Semantically that's not the only way to interpret that.  If you think about perception like the spray of water from a hose that has been trained upon you, it can make sense to _begin_ avoiding it even if it already has caught you.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Jun 23, 2008)

I ran a single encounter for a player this weekend to see if I had grasped the 4E rules well enough to run our next game this weekend.  I realized I still don't understand how and when you can use Stealth in combat in even the most basic and frequent types of scenarios.  

The specific example that came up was that the party walked into a dungeon and was immediately in plain view of a group of kobolds.  The rogue in the party, on the first round, moved behind a corner so he had cover (not superior cover) from both enemy kobolds that were within line of sight of the party.  The rogue used a Move Action to get to the place where he had cover against the kobolds' ranged attacks.  He then used a Standard Action to throw a dagger against one of the kobolds.  The player wanted to know if he should roll a Stealth check to see if he had Combat Advantage against the kobold.  

Should he have been able to use his Standard Action to attack stealthily and roll a Stealth roll as well as an attack roll, since he by then had obtained a position with cover?  Or did he first need to use up some other kind of action after moving to the position with cover?  Or was he prevented from using Stealth at all in this encounter, since the kobolds were already aware of him and knew what square he necessarily had to occupy, even though he had cover against their ranged attacks?

Assuming he could use Stealth at all, did the rogue need to beat both kobolds' Perception to get Combat Advantage against his one target, or did he only need to beat the one target's Perception?  And did he only need to beat passive Perception, or should the kobold(s) have rolled a Perception check as an opposed check?

Are all of my questions still unanswerable until errata/clarifications come out, or are the answers to at least some of my questions clear at this point, in your view of the rules as written?

This is one area where the Player's Handbook fell short by failing to include a couple of examples of how Stealth works in combat with a detailed blow by blow explanation.


----------



## Leugren (Jun 23, 2008)

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> I ran a single encounter for a player this weekend to see if I had grasped the 4E rules well enough to run our next game this weekend.  I realized I still don't understand how and when you can use Stealth in combat in even the most basic and frequent types of scenarios.
> 
> The specific example that came up was that the party walked into a dungeon and was immediately in plain view of a group of kobolds.  The rogue in the party, on the first round, moved behind a corner so he had cover (not superior cover) from both enemy kobolds that were within line of sight of the party.  The rogue used a Move Action to get to the place where he had cover against the kobolds' ranged attacks.  He then used a Standard Action to throw a dagger against one of the kobolds.  The player wanted to know if he should roll a Stealth check to see if he had Combat Advantage against the kobold.
> 
> ...




Here's how I would have ruled it:

1. The rogue gets to make a Stealth check as part of the move action that got him to the position of cover.  He gets a -5 modifier to the roll if he moved more than 2 squares.

2. Each kobold opposes this check with an active Perception roll.  If there were 40 kobolds, I'd probably just use their passive Perception scores, but since there are only two, I'd go ahead and roll for each.

3.  If the kobold he is targeting with his attack fails his Perception roll, I'd grant the rogue combat advantage against that kobold.  The other kobold's perception roll doesn't factor into this equation at all.  

4.  Since the rogue attacked, I'd rule that he is no longer hidden, so the kobolds can fire back at him with the standard -2 penalty to hit for cover.

5.  If the rogue had chosen not to attack, he would still be hidden, but both kobolds saw exactly where he went since they had full line of sight to him until he reached the corner.  On each of their turns, I would have the kobolds attempt an active Perception roll to pinpoint the rogue's exact position at the corner.  If they succeed, they can attack the rogue with the standard -2 penalty for cover.  If they fail, I'd have them move up to the corner to a position where they have unblocked line of sight to the rogue, thereby instantly revealing his position.  If that's not feasible, I'd have them target the square that the rogue is standing in, giving them a -5 penalty for total concealment.

This seems like a manageable and fairly consistent way to handle this type of scenario at least until we get some official clarification from WOTC.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 23, 2008)

> Should he have been able to use his Standard Action to attack stealthily and roll a Stealth roll as well as an attack roll, since he by then had obtained a position with cover?



Yes. Cover is one of the necessary conditions to use stealth. Attacking stealthily from behind cover in order to gain combat advantage is an intended use of the feature.



> Should he have been able to use his Standard Action to attack stealthily and roll a Stealth roll as well as an attack roll, since he by then had obtained a position with cover?



What confuses the issue in the PHB is that they treat out-of-combat and in-combat stealth  very fluidly; but the question of "avoiding notice" is only relevant to not alerting PCs to your presence or position. If you're trying to sneak past the guards and you fail a stealth check, they now know you're there and combat can begin. Alternately, you might be trying to sneak around to the back of a group in combat, using cover to do so; but if you fail one of your checks the opponents can now begin attacking your rogue's position.

Enemies might be aware a rogue or ranger is hiding behind a rock/pillar/corner, but they can't adequately defend against her attacks and so grant combat advantage.


> Assuming he could use Stealth at all, did the rogue need to beat both kobolds' Perception to get Combat Advantage against his one target, or did he only need to beat the one target's Perception? And did he only need to beat passive Perception, or should the kobold(s) have rolled a Perception check as an opposed check?



As the DM it's up to you; normally it's a passive check. If the kobolds spent part of their turn (minor action I believe, see p281) warily watching for the thief, it would be an active check.

It doesn't matter if the 2nd kobold sees him (but of course that kobold can see where he is, and come attack him on his turn), he only needs to get advantage over his target.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Jun 23, 2008)

Leugren, I think your ruling makes sense.  I think I will use that as my ruling next weekend unless we get clarification that is different from WOTC before then.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 23, 2008)

Here's the answers I got from CSRs earlier:

Answers from Evan T. (Wizard CSR)
_Can ranged attackers, eg. rogues and rangers, use cover (eg, walls, pillars) or concealment (eg. bushes, darkness) to make stealth attacks during combat? _
*You can make a stealth attempt with any action that you do. So, if you have cover or concealment, you can attempt to hide yourself as part of your attack. If you are successful, then you are given combat advantage against your opponents who can not see you. *

_Is it part of the design intention of 4E that players are encouraged to make use of tactics that can grant Combat Advantage, and using terrain to make stealth attacks is intended and encouraged by the rules?_
*This stealth system was implemented to make cover and concealment useful to players, and make the environment more interactive. *

Answer from Joe (Wizards CSR) 19/06/2008
_So the core question here that I would like to confirm is: each time a player attempts a stealth attack during combat (which could be each round for each stealther), the player's stealth check DC is:
a) the passive perception of their target (since this is the only monster they need to be hidden against)
b) an active perception roll for the target (requiring a roll from both player and DM, each turn)
c) the passive perception of all monsters in range, whether they're involved in this attack or not
d) the active perception checks of all monsters in range (requiring multiple rolls from the DM each turn)_

*The Stealth check is opposed by a Perception check from each observer. To gain combat advantage on the attack, the attacker only needs to succeed vs the target, though the DM can of course play around with this. Unless characters are actively being perceptive, use the passive value.
The DM will always make the final ruling on any issue that arises.*


----------



## Ziana (Jun 23, 2008)

Leugren said:
			
		

> 1. The rogue gets to make a Stealth check as part of the move action that got him to the position of cover.  He get a -5 modifier to the roll if he moved more than 2 squares.



Since the move begins in the open, stealth isn't possible. He's seen by default. It's not until he gets to cover and attempts a stealth action that a roll is needed.



> 2. Each kobold opposes this check with an active Perception roll.  If there were 40 kobolds, I'd probably just use their passive Perception scores, but since there are only two, I'd go ahead and roll for each.



Per the CSR response above, normally passive applies, unless the creatures are making active checks. DM has discretion of course. However, in combat if a creature is focussed on their immediate target, it makes sense they're not simultaneously watching for the sniper in the bushes.



> 3.  If the kobold he is targeting with his attack fails his Perception roll, I'd grant the rogue combat advantage against that kobold.  The other kobold's perception roll doesn't factor into this equation at all.



Right. If others spot him however, they can run over & kick his ass.



> 4.  Since the rogue attacked, I'd rule that he is no longer hidden, so the kobolds can fire back at him with the standard -2 penalty to hit for cover.



The rogue can attempt to make stealth attacks each turn he's behind cover. The kobolds are aware of his position so as you say can make attacks against him with the cover penalty, or run to his spot.


----------



## Leugren (Jun 23, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> Since the move begins in the open, stealth isn't possible. He's seen by default. It's not until he gets to cover and attempts a stealth action that a roll is needed.




I believe, but I'm not certain, that we are both saying the same thing here.  As long as the kobolds have full line of sight on him, he cannot attempt a Stealth check.  During his move action, as soon as he reaches a position that offers him cover, he can attempt a Stealth check.  Thus, my statement that "the rogue gets to make a Stealth check as part of the move action that got him to the position of cover" holds true.


----------



## Leugren (Jun 23, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> Per the CSR response above, normally passive applies, unless the creatures are making active checks. DM has discretion of course. However, in combat if a creature is focussed on their immediate target, it makes sense they're not simultaneously watching for the sniper in the bushes.



For me, the passive vs. active debate comes down to a matter of pure pragmatism.  I don't want to roll 40 Perception checks if there are 40 combatants on the field, so I just rule that everyone is effectively taking 10 on their rolls which produces a completely average result for each creature; no really high rolls and no really low rolls.  This also has the added advantage that I don't have to keep track of which individual opponents actually made their rolls and which ones failed.  Tracking is instead by creature type, since all creatures of the same basic type have the same passive Perception score (e.g. all of the Kobold Skirmishers succeed, but all of the Kobold Minions fail).  

This arguably has the downside of making things easier or more predictable for the rogue, but I'm willing to sacrifice predictability for the sake of keeping the game from grinding to a screeching halt.  If there are just a few opponents involved, I'll go ahead and make one roll for each to keep the rogue from getting too complacent.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 23, 2008)

Leugren said:
			
		

> I believe, but I'm not certain, that we are both saying the same thing here.



Sorry, it may seem minor, but there's a difference in how we see this. Per p188: "Stealth: Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily". 



> As long as the kobolds have full line of sight on him, he cannot attempt a Stealth check.



Right. His move action _cannot_ be done stealthily. Per the unblocked line of sight rule, he's automatically seen moving into the cover.



> During his move action, as soon as he reaches a position that offers him cover, he can attempt a Stealth check.  Thus, my statement that "the rogue gets to make a Stealth check as part of the move action that got him to the position of cover" holds true.



He can make a stealth check as part of an action (eg his attack) once he's behind cover. The move action can't be done stealthily, so the stealth check isn't part of the move action or related to it.

It's a question of which action is being done stealthily. Assume for a moment that the rogue had already performed a standard action, and only has a move action remaining. He can move his speed to cover, but there's no stealth involved, as he's in plain line of sight.

On his next turn, he may attempt a stealth attack, using his cover to prevent his target from seeing him attack.

And yes, dealing with passive checks for a crowd makes sense. The exception may be is if an enemy skirmisher or two decides the rogue is a threat, and goes into the bushes or whatever to find him.


----------



## Ophidimancer (Jun 23, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> He can make a stealth check as part of an action (eg his attack) once he's behind cover. The move action can't be done stealthily, so the stealth check isn't part of the move action or related to it.




Then my question would be whether or not you'd penalize that Stealth check for movement or not.  I mean, you didn't move as part of your Stealth check, right?


----------



## Ziana (Jun 23, 2008)

Right. The stealth check is part of the attack, and his previous move wasn't stealthy, so there's no penalty for the movement.

Where a stealth movement penalty applies, is in a situation where a rogue is moving through the bushes, trying to remain unseen, but moves 6 instead of 2. The enemies have a greater chance of noticing him move at that time.


----------



## Ophidimancer (Jun 23, 2008)

Hmm . . then with a warlock and Shadow Walk you could stealth anywhere with no penalty as long as you let yourself be seen during your move action?


----------



## Ravingdork (Jun 23, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> Answer from Joe (Wizards CSR) 19/06/2008
> _So the core question here that I would like to confirm is: each time a player attempts a stealth attack during combat (which could be each round for each stealther), the player's stealth check DC is:
> a) the passive perception of their target (since this is the only monster they need to be hidden against)
> b) an active perception roll for the target (requiring a roll from both player and DM, each turn)
> ...




I'm having difficulty deciphering Joe's answer. Does the player roll against the enemies' (rolle) Perception checks? Their passive Perception? Or either one depending on GM's discretion?


----------



## Ziana (Jun 23, 2008)

Normally the passive perception. Active if the creatures are actively looking (eg, spending a minor action each turn) for stealthers. Normally only the target is relevant, but the DM may decide other creatures are involved.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 23, 2008)

Oph: the penalty is to the stealth check done related to attempting to move stealthily more than 2 squares. I've seen nothing that indicates it affects subsequent checks.

Eg, you run through partial darkness past a camp of guards eating dinner. You take -10 to your check to do so, vs their passive perception. You stop and take cover behind a barrel. If none of them noticed you, you can then make a stealth attack with no penalty.

Such is my understanding anyway.


----------



## Ophidimancer (Jun 23, 2008)

I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that the second statement was in regards to warlocks who, as a class feature, gain Concealment when they move more than 3 squares, which lasts until the end of their next turn.

what I was proposing was that the warlock can move 6 squares gaining concealment from Shadow Walk after 3, stop moving, and make a Stealth check with no penalty.  They'd be visible for 3 squares (2?) concealed for 3 squares, and then be stealthed when they stop.


----------



## Leugren (Jun 23, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> Sorry, it may seem minor, but there's a difference in how we see this. Per p188: "Stealth: Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily".
> 
> 
> Right. His move action _cannot_ be done stealthily. Per the unblocked line of sight rule, he's automatically seen moving into the cover.
> ...




I disagree with this.  You are basically saying that, if any part of my move takes me through a square that affords my opponents a full line of sight to me, then I cannot attempt a Stealth check as part of that move action.  This is too restrictive.

I believe that quite the opposite is true: as long as any part of my move action takes me through a square that provides me with cover or concealment, the conditions are fulfilled, and I can attempt a Stealth check as part of that move action. If I end my move in a square that provides full line of sight, then everyone can see me, so the point is moot.  If I end my move in a square that gives me cover or concealment, however, then my Stealth check determines who can or cannot see me.  At any rate, the Stealth check was made as part of the move action, even though I spent part of that move action in full line of sight, and part of it behind cover.  This does not contradict the RAW in any way that I can see, and I would allow it in my game until we get an official rules clarification to the contrary.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 24, 2008)

P188: "If a creature has unblocked line of sight to you (that is, you lack any cover or concealment), the creature automatically sees you (no Perception check required). "

P122: *Shadow Stride* Rogue Utility 10 "You must be hiding to use this power. You can move your speed. At the end of that movement, if you have cover, you can make a Stealth check with no penalty for moving. If you make the Stealth check, you stay hidden during your movement."

You don't get to run by in full view of monsters and not be noticed. Stealth doesn't work like in 3rd edition, it's not "invisibility mode". At 10th level, a rogue has the option of taking a utility power that lets them sneak by in line of sight.

Out of combat, if a creature is distracted (eg, facing the other way, a guard patrolling down the hallway, the sexy mage chats up the innkeeper), you can stealth past them where they can't see you. In combat, all creatures are considered to be looking in all directions (there's no "facing" in 4E).


----------



## Leugren (Jun 24, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> P188: "If a creature has unblocked line of sight to you (that is, you lack any cover or concealment), the creature automatically sees you (no Perception check required). "



Yes, the creature sees me all the way, but when I reach the square at the end of my move which provides me with cover, I get to make a Stealth check, because I now have cover.  If I succeed, I have combat advantage.  The creature knows where I went, but he can't see me right now unless he succeeds at a Perception roll.



			
				Ziana said:
			
		

> P122: *Shadow Stride* Rogue Utility 10 "You must be hiding to use this power. You can move your speed. At the end of that movement, if you have cover, you can make a Stealth check with no penalty for moving. If you make the Stealth check, you stay hidden during your movement."



If I have this power, I am Stealthed during my entire move assuming that I succeed on my Stealth check, even though part of that move carries me across squares that afford my opponent a full line of sight to me.  My opponent basically has no idea where I went.  If I lack this power, the creature watches me move from one area of cover to the other, so he knows exactly where I am when I reach my new area of cover, but even though he has a good idea of where I am, he still cannot see me if I succeed at my Stealth check.  It's not that complicated.

Your own interpretation of the rules fails by the KISS principle:

*Rogue:*  I am currently in full view, but I run to that area of cover and attempt a Stealth check.

*DM:* You cannot attempt the Stealth check because you started your move in full view.

*Rogue:*  OK, but I still have a minor action left, so when I finish my move, I attempt to scratch my ass stealthily.

*DM:*  OK, now that you've scratched your ass, you can make your Stealth check; the kobolds can't see you now, so you can gain combat advantage.

In all of the postings by the various CSRs, we only have one that seems to involve any sort of a dialog with an actual game designer/developer and it states this:



> This stealth thing was bugging me last night so I actually got in with some of our product experts and I got a better description of how stealth works. Read below Its easier than I described.
> 
> You only make 1 stealth check and that sets the DC for those enemies to see you. So basically you move for cover/concealment as your move action. The stealth check is actually considered part of that move action.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 24, 2008)

Leugren: I believe you're still thinking of stealth in previous edition (2 or 3) terms. 



> Yes, the creature sees me all the way, but when I reach the square at the end of my move which provides me with cover, I get to make a Stealth check, because I now have cover. If I succeed, I have combat advantage. The creature knows where I went, but he can't see me right now unless he succeeds at a Perception roll.




Again, this is the point you don't seem to be getting. Stealth is not an action by itself. It's _part of whatever action you are taking_. You don't "roll for stealth" just because you happen to be behind cover. You roll when you move or attack.

Since you were exposed during your move, that move was not stealthy. You were seen. 

But since you are behind cover, your attack CAN be stealthy. You make a stealth roll _that is part of your attack_. If that roll is successful, then yes, you have combat advantage.



> If I have this power, I am Stealthed during my entire move assuming that I succeed on my Stealth check, even though part of that move carries me across squares that afford my opponent a full line of sight to me.



Right, that's the benefit of a 10th level rogue utility power. You get to break the line of sight rule, and expose yourself during a move but still stay stealthed if you start and end behind cover.



> DM: OK, now that you've scratched your ass, you can make your Stealth check; the kobolds can't see you now, so you can gain combat advantage.



No, the kobolds don't see you *scratch your ass*. That has no bearing on anything else. They know you're behind the cover. You have the protection cover gives against their attacks. WHEN you attack, you then make a stealth check to see if you can do so stealthily, and so gain combat advantage.

This is the difference between 2/3 and 4:
2/3: Run behind a wall, "Hide", then move around as if you're invisible, or "move silently" and sneak up on someone.
4: Move, attack, or anything else. If you have cover/concealment, you can do a stealth check as part of the action. If you succeed _that particular action is stealthy_. 



> The stealth check is actually considered part of that move action.



This CSR response was actually just a few days after launch, June 11. CSRs at the time were providing completely contradictory answers on stealth to player questions. Following which, if you read this thread in its entirety and the one on Gleemax _they stopped answering all stealth questions for a few days_. Then they got their story straight.

The same CSR said in the following message "Remember again, you CANNOT make a stealth check without moving first. You can't call for a check without moving." which directly contradicts the PHB, and which later CSR responses showed was wrong. You can stay behind one piece of cover and make stealth attacks each round.

It's very simple. Get to cover. Roll a stealth check when you attack. If you succeed, you have combat advantage against you target. Do this each round.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Jun 24, 2008)

O.k., I think I understand how to use Stealth in combat under most circumstances now.  So long as you have cover or concealment at the time you make an attack, you make a Stealth check to see if you have combat advantage against your target.  Other Stealth checks may be needed in or out of combat to determine if various opponents can see you and/or are aware of you, but even if the target knows what square you are in, if you have cover or concealment you can try to succeed at a Stealth check when you attack to gain combat advantage.  At least that is what I think right now.  It would be great to get a full FAQ from WOTC on this to make completely sure that I am understanding it correctly.


----------



## Ziana (Jun 24, 2008)

I agree, it would definitely be helpful to get a detailed article on exactly how the designers intend stealth to work from WotC.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jun 24, 2008)

That is a pretty convincing argument for how stealth works.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 24, 2008)

I still like reading the tactics for a Halfling Slinger in the MM.

Specific mention of using Stealth for combat advantage at the start of the fight (actually stated to use stealth for this), but not one mention--in ANY tactics for any high stealth creature--to use stealth to achieve combat advantage once spotted.

Food for thought.


----------



## Surgoshan (Jun 24, 2008)

I'd say that it doesn't matter where you are during the whole of your move, but only where you end.  Say you move three squares with no cover.  On your fourth step you end up behind a wall and duck (roll for stealth).  The mobs don't know if you've stopped there, if you have more movement, what have you.  But because you moved a lot, you didn't have as much time to try and hide well.  But because you ducked and they don't know much (anything) about you, they still don't know where you are, unless they're really perceptive.  

I wouldn't penalize the player for where he _was_, only for where he is and how he got there.


----------



## Miar (Jun 24, 2008)

Related question... The warlock power eyebite  says "you are invisible to the target until the start of your next turn".  Does this mean you reappear and are seen and don't get combat advantage or can you make your attack while coming out of invis. and get combat advantage??


----------



## Barzhac (Jun 24, 2008)

*Broken*

This entire dialoge tells me that both Fighters and Rogues are broken.  Fighters have no powers - none - that they can use with a ranged attack.  Rogues not only do have a numbers of powers that can be used at range (_piercing strike _ vs. those pesky soldiers, and _sly flourish _ for extra damage are bot hat will, and can be used melee or ranged).  So with a pillar and a little ducking my high dex rogue hits well, causes moderate damage (unless she picked up longbow), and gets sneak attack damage on top of that.  

So at first level, with jsut a dagger and _piercing strike_, it's something like +8 to hit vs. *reflex*, a d4+4+2d6 damage (13.5 points).

Meanwhile, the fighter, who's trained in Military ranged weapons, fires a longbow, with probably a +2 (maybe +3 if he has some dex) to hit, and a d10 (Maybe +1) damage.   Since Longbows are useless to high strength PC's, he uses javelin instead (ever fired a bow with a pull too strong for you?  I'll defintiely be using the old HR to bring back strength pull bows).  Now he gets +6 to hit vs *AC* does a d6+4 damage (average 7.5).  All his "training" is worht exactly spit.

And in hand to hand, the rogue still does at least as much damage as the fighter, has about the same AC (thanks to the "no ability bonus to AC in heavy armor" rule), roughly equal other defenses (averaged out).

It would seem that the fighter's one and only job is to be a meat shield for the rest of the party.  Um, who exactly wants to play a meat shield?  Didn't we used to have hirelings for that sort of thing precisely because nobody wanted to do it?

I;ve been playing both a fighter and a rogue and have yet to see anythign the fighter can do better than the rogue.  I have yet to see any reason to have one in the party at all.  And now, with the adition of using stealth to get off sneak attacks more often than not, the rogue also becomes an artillary platform.

Sure glad they spent so much time removing the "broken" stuff from 3.5


----------



## Barzhac (Jun 24, 2008)

UUURRRGHGH!!!!!

Please ignore my pitiful typing.  Behind it lies a mind of beauty and geniu!  

No, really!  I promise!


----------



## Barzhac (Jun 24, 2008)

g   e   n   i  u  s

yeah, that's waht I meant.


----------



## Barzhac (Jun 24, 2008)

W    H    A    T

All right, my mind is apparently no longer on duty.  Later


----------



## Arbitrary (Jun 24, 2008)

Fighters not having good ranged damage isn't a very big deal.


----------



## Surgoshan (Jun 24, 2008)

I don't know if we'll be getting a ranged defender; the roles don't seem to meld.  The fighter having the ability to use any ranged weapon is an ancillary benefit (gives him more options, like when they fight a dragon he's not completely useless after it takes to the air), but it's not part of his core purpose.


----------



## coldpheasant (Jun 24, 2008)

*Fighter crushes rogue*



			
				Barzhac said:
			
		

> It would seem that the fighter's one and only job is to be a meat shield for the rest of the party.  Um, who exactly wants to play a meat shield?  Didn't we used to have hirelings for that sort of thing precisely because nobody wanted to do it?
> 
> I;ve been playing both a fighter and a rogue and have yet to see anythign the fighter can do better than the rogue.  I have yet to see any reason to have one in the party at all.  And now, with the adition of using stealth to get off sneak attacks more often than not, the rogue also becomes an artillary platform.
> 
> Sure glad they spent so much time removing the "broken" stuff from 3.5




Consider this: Human Fighter with a 20 Str, 14 Con, 10,10,10,8.  Wield a heavy flail or a maul (2d6 damage).  Feats: Power Attack and Weapon Focus.

5 str +2 proficiency +1 fighter weapon talent would give you a +8 to hit. 

+6 when you power attack.

Reaping Strike (lvl1, at-will): 2d6 + 9(5str +3 PA + 1 WF) damage on a power attack if you hit.  _If you miss it would still do 5 damage._  The rogue has no lvl one at-will powers that damage their opponent on a miss.  

Passing Attack (lvl 1, encounter): First hit: 2d6 + 9. _shift_ Second hit 2d6 + 9.  Total = 4d6 + 18 damage in one turn.  I think you'll find this comparable to a rogue's encounter power damage.

Brutal Strike (lvl1, daily):  6d6 + 9 damage!  Since this is a "reliable" power you would not expend your daily use if it missed.  That's 45 potential damage at first level.  Not bad for a meat shield, eh?  The rogue has no "reliable" lvl 1 daily powers.  It's nice to have a 6d6+9 attack up your sleeve every day that WILL hit.

O yeah, and you'd still be able to manage a 14 constitution with your 20 strength.  Not so amazing... but you could make up weak defenses with feats as you progress.  As a fighter, you'd likely benefit more than other classes from magical weapon enhancements as well.  Remember, 3[W] means a lot more for a maul than it does for a shuriken or a dagger.

Of course, damage is not the only part of a role playing game or even a tactical miniatures game.  There are many reasons to play a fighter, and one of them is to be able to smash things with a big hammer.  Don't focus on how a fighter compares to a rogue, but focus on how effective a rogue can be when the fighter has the attention of the enemies


----------



## ozziewolf (Jun 24, 2008)

Barzhac said:
			
		

> This entire dialoge tells me that both Fighters and Rogues are broken.  Fighters have no powers - none - that they can use with a ranged attack.  Rogues not only do have a numbers of powers that can be used at range (_piercing strike _ vs. those pesky soldiers, and _sly flourish _ for extra damage are bot hat will, and can be used melee or ranged).  So with a pillar and a little ducking my high dex rogue hits well, causes moderate damage (unless she picked up longbow), and gets sneak attack damage on top of that.
> 
> So at first level, with jsut a dagger and _piercing strike_, it's something like +8 to hit vs. *reflex*, a d4+4+2d6 damage (13.5 points).
> 
> ...




To bad piercing strike is melee only and all of the Rogues ranged attacks are against AC only.  So a level 1 Rogue will have +8 to hit versus a high strength Fighter who will have at least +6 to hit.. not a huge difference.  Especially considering one is a Defender and one is a Striker.

It's already been stated and almost every one agrees that stealth as it's written isn't how it's actually intended and is broken.   We'll probably see a fix/clarification with the next errata update.


----------



## Surgoshan (Jun 24, 2008)

The fighter doesn't have to hit to do what he's supposed to do.  He just has to attack.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 24, 2008)

Ziana said:
			
		

> If the kobolds spent part of their turn (minor action I believe, see p281) warily watching for the thief, it would be an active check.




This is confusing as heck, because in the Perception skill it states that you spend 1 minute or a Standard action to use active Perception. :/ I guess one is for checking if you don't know someone is there, and the other is for locating someone you're already aware of.


----------



## WOLead (Jun 24, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> This is confusing as heck, because in the Perception skill it states that you spend 1 minute or a Standard action to use active Perception. :/ I guess one is for checking if you don't know someone is there, and the other is for locating someone you're already aware of.



 Eh, I would think...

Standard Action Perception Check:  Trying to spot everything/anything that may be hidden from view, whether you are aware of it or not.

Minor Action Perception Check:  Trying to spot one object/person that you are aware of.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 25, 2008)

Let's see if I got this:

My gf's rogue is already hidden from a stealth roll. Combat begins. She "stealthily" attacks, beats everyone's perception roll. Sneak attack. She is still hidden from everyone's view?

She then makes a stealth check to "stealthily" attack and fails. No sneak attack. She is now visible to all who pass the perception roll. She then drops prone into concealment (we're in the woods) and "stealthily" moves away from her position. With a roll of 30, she is now hidden from everyone's view?

The goblin archer readies an action to shoot her the next time he sees her.

Now she "stealthily" moves behind a tree (with another 30) and then "stealthily" attacks said archer with another 30 stealth roll. He (miserably) fails his perception roll; can he attack her? 

Regardless of the goblin's action, her attack grants combat advantage?

Next, she leaves the safety of her tree, crosses a clearing, and gets behind a second tree. She cannot roll Stealth, because she entered clear line of sight? 

May she then "stealthily" attack and get combat advantage?

Regardless, can she then "stealthily" drop into a crouch and become hidden from anything but clear line of sight?


----------



## bardolph (Jun 25, 2008)

Barzhac said:
			
		

> I;ve been playing both a fighter and a rogue and have yet to see anythign the fighter can do better than the rogue.  I have yet to see any reason to have one in the party at all.  And now, with the adition of using stealth to get off sneak attacks more often than not, the rogue also becomes an artillary platform.



Fighter = Defender.  Rogue = Striker.  Is it any surprise that the Rogue does more damage than a fighter?



> It would seem that the fighter's one and only job is to be a meat shield for the rest of the party.  Um, who exactly wants to play a meat shield?  Didn't we used to have hirelings for that sort of thing precisely because nobody wanted to do it?



The meat shield, or "Tank", is arguably the most important and exciting role in a party, and is certainly the most involved character.  The Tank is where the entire team comes together, and good tanking often makes the difference between success and failure as a group.


----------



## bardolph (Jun 25, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> Let's see if I got this:
> 
> My gf's rogue is already hidden from a stealth roll. Combat begins. She "stealthily" attacks, beats everyone's perception roll. Sneak attack. She is still hidden from everyone's view?



No.  She is considered hidden because she is already hidden.  Yes, she gains combat advantage, but the attack is not "stealthy" and once she attacks she is no longer hidden.

PHB, p188: "Success: You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view. If you later attack or shout, you're no longer hidden."



> She then makes a stealth check to "stealthily" attack and fails. No sneak attack. She is now visible to all who pass the perception roll. She then drops prone into concealment (we're in the woods) and "stealthily" moves away from her position. With a roll of 30, she is now hidden from everyone's view?



As above, the attack itself cannot be stealthy.  However, her crawl action can be "stealthy," and note that she gets a -5 to her roll if she moves more than 2 squares.

Note that some _monsters_ have the "Sniper Fire" ability, which allows them to remain hidden if they miss a ranged attack.  However, this is not a character ability.



> The goblin archer readies an action to shoot her the next time he sees her.
> 
> Now she "stealthily" moves behind a tree (with another 30) and then "stealthily" attacks said archer with another 30 stealth roll. He (miserably) fails his perception roll; can he attack her?  Regardless of the goblin's action, her attack grants combat advantage?



Her attack has combat advantage against the goblin, but she also has a -2 to her attack due to firing while prone.

The goblin can then attack her with his readied action, because she broke her stealth when she attacked.  Then, during the goblin's turn, he can move adjacent to her, and use a melee weapon to attack her with combat advantage, since she is prone.



> Next, she leaves the safety of her tree, crosses a clearing, and gets behind a second tree. She cannot roll Stealth, because she entered clear line of sight?



Yes.  Also remember that standing up is a move action, and if the goblin is adjacent (as he would be in my example above), moving away would provoke an Opportunity Attack.



> Regardless, can she then "stealthily" drop into a crouch and become hidden from anything but clear line of sight?



Yes.  However, her opponents would presumably know which square she's in, even if she is hidden.


Hope this helps.

===============

PS:  Regarding using allies to gain cover and roll Stealth, the answer is "no."

PHB p 290: "When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover."

This means that the cover ONLY applies during the ATTACKER's turn, _when they attack you,_ and therefore you cannot duck behind your friend and make a stealth roll, since on your own turn your ally does not count as cover.


----------



## bardolph (Jun 25, 2008)

I do think the Stealth rules, as written, are a bit goofy.  Here's how I would houserule it:

New Condition: "Hidden" - Grants combat advantage.  Shouting or attacking ends.  Requires a Stealth roll vs Passive Perception to perform any non-attack action and remain hidden.

New Move Action: "Hide" - Requires cover or concealment.  Cannot be performed when adjacent to an enemy.  Cannot be performed if any enemies have unblocked line of sight to you.  Make a Stealth roll vs the highest Passive Perception of all enemies within line of sight to become hidden.


Rule clarification: Distract - If you succeed in your Bluff check, you must immediately move into cover or concealment, and make a Stealth roll to become hidden.  Moving in this manner does not provoke an Opportunity Attack from the target.  If you do not move into cover or concealment, you automatically lose hidden status as soon as your turn ends. (This is actually consistent with the rules as written, but the PHB doesn't explain it very well)


----------



## Dortmunder (Jun 25, 2008)

Not sure if this has been answered already in the thread but...

Can a Rogue use an ally as cover from an enemy, and make Stealth checks every round to gain Combat Advantage, as long as his ally stays between him and the enemy?


----------



## Contents May Vary (Jun 25, 2008)

Dortmunder said:
			
		

> Not sure if this has been answered already in the thread but...
> 
> Can a Rogue use an ally as cover from an enemy, and make Stealth checks every round to gain Combat Advantage, as long as his ally stays between him and the enemy?




I would say so. Enemies grant cover to other enemies, so I would think that allies grant cover to other allies.

(From PHB pg 280: "When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover." - so switching the word "enemy" to "ally" and "you" to "a monster"...)


----------



## Surgoshan (Jun 25, 2008)

Allies grant cover to allies, yes, but only for the purpose of the ranged attack, not for purposes of stealth.


----------



## Dan'L (Jun 25, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> The goblin archer readies an action to shoot her the next time he sees her.
> 
> Now she "stealthily" moves behind a tree (with another 30) and then "stealthily" attacks said archer with another 30 stealth roll. He (miserably) fails his perception roll; can he attack her?
> 
> Regardless of the goblin's action, her attack grants combat advantage?




The goblin archer's readied action is an "immediate reaction."  Meaning, if he doesn't see her until she attacks, then her attack goes off first, and she clearly has combat advantage.   But he will see her when she attacks, since attacking breaks the stealthy.  If she regains/maintains cover AFTER her attack and his immediate reaction, THEN she can try to regain a stealthy state.

-Dan'L


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 25, 2008)

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> Allies grant cover to allies, yes, but only for the purpose of the ranged attack, not for purposes of stealth.




Where in the rules does it make a distinction between cover from an ally and stealth?

From what I can tell, it just says you need cover with regard to the target.  Allies grant you cover with regard to the taget.


----------



## Markn (Jun 25, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Where in the rules does it make a distinction between cover from an ally and stealth?
> 
> From what I can tell, it just says you need cover with regard to the target.  Allies grant you cover with regard to the taget.




I'm at work right now so I can't supply a page number.  But I guarantee that allies do NOT grant you cover in regards to stealth.  It should be spelled out under the Stealth skill IIRC.


----------



## AsmodeusDM (Jun 25, 2008)

I for one plan on asking any 4e developers that are going to be @ Origins this week. I read on some blogs that some of them are going to be there.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 25, 2008)

bardolph said:
			
		

> No.  She is considered hidden because she is already hidden.  Yes, she gains combat advantage, but the attack is not "stealthy" and once she attacks she is no longer hidden.




You can try a stealth check with any action.  There is no restriction to using stealth with movement.  You simply must "[H]ave cover against or concealment from the creature to make a Stealth check", and you can make a stealth check as "Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily".  



> As above, the attack itself cannot be stealthy.  However, her crawl action can be "stealthy," and note that she gets a -5 to her roll if she moves more than 2 squares.




I disagree.  There is nothing that says it has to be a move.  It can be an attack action.  It can even be a minor action.  It might even include a free action.  It's just "Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily".  



> PS:  Regarding using allies to gain cover and roll Stealth, the answer is "no."
> 
> PHB p 290: "When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover."
> 
> This means that the cover ONLY applies during the ATTACKER's turn, _when they attack you,_ and therefore you cannot duck behind your friend and make a stealth roll, since on your own turn your ally does not count as cover.




That is your interpretation, and I think it's not a good one.  It's talking about ranged attacks because that is the only time it could come up (if you are in melee, you cannot have an ally between the two of you - even reach would use the ranged attack rules).  And it's talking about making an attack because that is when it is generally relevant for that rule.  But for stealth, you need cover relative to a particular enemy.  Allies provide cover relative to a particular enemy.

Your interpretation also results in problems with interrupt actions. Many powers allow an interrupt attack triggered by someone else's attack.  What happens when one of those targets gets such an ranged interrupt attack in response to your attack?  Do you have normal cover against their interrupt attack on your turn, but not for your own stealth check in that same round as part of that same attack? How does that make sense?

It makes sense if the rule is "cover relative to your target", which is consistent, and which allows stealth checks from allies being between you and a foe.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jun 25, 2008)

Either we wait until there is a rock solid clarification or we make our own decisions.  The mechanic is poorly implemented and the wordings are confusion and sometimes contradictory.  

Further arguing isn't getting anyone anywhere.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 25, 2008)

Markn said:
			
		

> I'm at work right now so I can't supply a page number.  But I guarantee that allies do NOT grant you cover in regards to stealth.  It should be spelled out under the Stealth skill IIRC.




It's definitely not spelled out in the stealth skill: "Unless a creature is distracted, you must have cover against or concealment from the creature to make a Stealth check". That's it. 

Allies grant you cover against the target.

Some argue it's only on the opponent's turn, but I disagree with that interpretation.  Regardless, it's not spell out, and reasonable minds can and do differ on this topic.


----------



## Markn (Jun 25, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's definitely not spelled out in the stealth skill: "Unless a creature is distracted, you must have cover against or concealment from the creature to make a Stealth check". That's it.
> 
> Allies grant you cover against the target.
> 
> Some argue it's only on the opponent's turn, but I disagree with that interpretation.  Regardless, it's not spell out, and reasonable minds can and do differ on this topic.




I'll be home in less than an hour.  I'll see if I can find the reference and post the page number...


----------



## Markn (Jun 25, 2008)

OK, so I forgot I have digital copies at work...

After looking, I guess my guarantee isn't worth anything Mistwell.  My apologies.  There is no clear cut rule on this.  There are tons of ways to interpret the rules (which is why this thread has so many pages).

I guess I have nothing of value to add.... 

If anything, one should strictly go by the Determining Cover rule underneath the Cover section since Stealth only refers to Cover and makes no distinction between creatures and objects.  Based on that, it would seem that you could hide behind an ally.

Having said that, I'm not allowing PC's to hide behind alllies.  But that is my house rule.


----------



## tweinst (Jun 26, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's definitely not spelled out in the stealth skill: "Unless a creature is distracted, you must have cover against or concealment from the creature to make a Stealth check". That's it.
> 
> Allies grant you cover against the target.
> 
> Some argue it's only on the opponent's turn, but I disagree with that interpretation.  Regardless, it's not spell out, and reasonable minds can and do differ on this topic.




On page 280 of the PHB, it says:



> Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks.




You only get cover for ranged attacks. Creatures do not provide cover for any other purpose.


----------



## Markn (Jun 26, 2008)

tweinst said:
			
		

> You only get cover for ranged attacks. Creatures do not provide cover for any other purpose.




That's an interpretation of the rules because it does not talk about stealth.  Its specific regarding ranged, melee and area attacks.  The last sentence of your quote is not within the description, therefore that is your interpretation (and a reasonable one I might add).

Again, while I disagree with you, that is the way I play it simply because I don't like the consequences of playing it the other way.

Edit - I see what you are saying now, the first part of the sentence: "Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, blah blah blah" could be seen as a pretty clear statement however many would still argue that reading that sentence as a whole it is still only talking about attacks.  So, I agree with you afterall.

How's that for girly indecisiveness for you?

PS - I'm not a girl.   

PS2 - Hope you girls don't take offense to that!


----------



## infocynic (Jun 26, 2008)

bardolph said:
			
		

> I do think the Stealth rules, as written, are a bit goofy.  Here's how I would houserule it:
> 
> New Condition: "Hidden" - Grants combat advantage.  Shouting or attacking ends.  Requires a Stealth roll vs Passive Perception to perform any non-attack action and remain hidden.
> 
> ...




I like this but I want to clarify how you Hide. No enemies can have "unblocked line of sight to you." What exactly does this cover? Basically you're wide open? You already need cover/concealment. Then enemies who have line of sight to you get a perception check... but wait, I thought nobody had line of sight to you? I guess this means the key is in "unblocked" line of sight... could you maybe define that better, in game mechanics? 

(This isn't a criticism, I really like this as a start to simplifying the horrible RAW, I just want to get this part clarified before I start using it.)


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 26, 2008)

tweinst said:
			
		

> On page 280 of the PHB, it says:
> 
> 
> 
> You only get cover for ranged attacks. Creatures do not provide cover for any other purpose.




Again, I disagree, and your not responding to my already posted response to this point.

Range has nothing to do with it. Of course it only applies to range - if you were next to the target, you could not have someone between you and the target.  So lets put an end to placing significance on the "range" part of it - it's not relevant for this discussion, it was just used to describe the situations that would arise.

As for attacks, in my opinion having cover "against" someone is having cover from their attacks.  If you disagree, let's hear why.  You have to show that having cover "against" something isn't present with the cover provided by allies against attacks.


----------



## Surgoshan (Jun 26, 2008)

The reason your allies don't provide true cover is covered by the exceptions based rules formulation.

The definition of cover is "The target is around a corner or protected by terrain" and superior cover is "The target is protected by a significant terrain advantage, such as...".  Neither of those includes either allies or foes.  

Then, later, an exception is granted for ranged attacks that specifically states, 'When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover".  

Thus, a creature can only grant its allies cover for ranged attacks and not stealth, because creatures are not a part of the terrain and the exception they're granted only covers ranged attacks.


----------



## threegee (Jun 26, 2008)

This thread involves a whole lot of people making things up. I prefer to discuss the rules as written, which generally precludes caring what the CSRs have to say. However, thinking about their varying responses raised a question in my mind: at what point does stealth play a role in the associated action? Using stealth is not-an-action because it is part of another action, but when does it happen? At the beginning? At the end? Somewhere in the middle?

It seems to me that the CSR responses may assume that the effects of stealth come into play _after_ the action. Stealth as part of an attack is meaningless because a character cannot be hidden following an attack. Therefore, a move action involving stealth would be the most logical predecessor to an attack. On the other hand, certain responses imply that stealth can be part of an attack action, so milage may vary.

Regardless, I believe part of understanding stealth fully involves knowing whether the benefits come into play before, during, or after the main part of the action.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 27, 2008)

threegee said:


> This thread involves a whole lot of people making things up. I prefer to discuss the rules as written, which generally precludes caring what the CSRs have to say. However, thinking about their varying responses raised a question in my mind: at what point does stealth play a role in the associated action? Using stealth is not-an-action because it is part of another action, but when does it happen? At the beginning? At the end? Somewhere in the middle?
> 
> It seems to me that the CSR responses may assume that the effects of stealth come into play _after_ the action. Stealth as part of an attack is meaningless because a character cannot be hidden following an attack. Therefore, a move action involving stealth would be the most logical predecessor to an attack. On the other hand, certain responses imply that stealth can be part of an attack action, so milage may vary.
> 
> Regardless, I believe part of understanding stealth fully involves knowing whether the benefits come into play before, during, or after the main part of the action.




I think it covers the whole action.  I know of no rules that separate an action into beginning, middle, and end.  It's just the action, or it isn't.

But, even if it's "at the end", I still think it's irrelevant.  I move into cover/concealment as a move action, without making a stealth check.  From the cover/concealment, I use a free action (or minor action) to touch my holy symbol as good luck, in a stealthy manner.  The stealth comes into effect at the end of my free action.  Since you can use stealth with any action which you are trying to do in a stealthy manner, by RAW it works.  I now make an attack that benefits from stealth.

Now, wouldn't it just make more sense to allow stealth to cover the attack action from the beginning without all that silliness?


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 27, 2008)

Surgoshan said:


> The reason your allies don't provide true cover is covered by the exceptions based rules formulation.
> 
> The definition of cover is "The target is around a corner or protected by terrain" and superior cover is "The target is protected by a significant terrain advantage, such as...".  Neither of those includes either allies or foes.
> 
> ...




If you are going to argue from the exceptions rule, you should choose the actual rule rather than the brief introductory example description of that rule.

In this case, we want to determine cover.  Given that, don't you think it's best if we look at the paragraph titled "Determining Cover"?

"To determine if a target has cover, choose a corner of a square you occupy (or a corner of your attack's origin square) and trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies.  If one or two of those lines are *blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover*.  (A line isn't blocked if it runs along the edge of an *obstacle's or enemy's square*).  If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover."

Note several things from the rule: 1) Range is not relevant, as I said earlier.  Again, can we please discard focus on the term "ranged attack", as it is not relevant and was just using the only possible example (you had to be at range because otherwise there couldn't be someone between you and the target); 2) obstacle and enemy are used interchangeably and as equivalents, and both are used to describe "cover" multiple times.

And on re-reading the cover section, the entire section uses language to describe an attack against a target with cover, and never in the context of stealth or from the perspective of the person with cover.  We can presume, if any cover can be used for a stealth check, you determine said cover as normal (IE from the perspective of the foe as if the foe were going to attack the stealthing character ("target")).  If not, then no cover rules are applicable to stealth - not obstacles nor people, since both are spoken of from the perspective of an attacker against a target with cover and not a stealthy person in cover making an attack.

Therefore, given range is not relevant, and given determining cover for all cover issues uses a rule that includes both obstacles and enemies being in the way, you can make a stealth check using an ally for cover.


----------



## toxicspirit (Jun 27, 2008)

In my opinion, Stealth is part of each action that you are trying to perform surreptitiously. If you are trying to hide while skulking through the woods, then a Stealth check would be made along with the move action. If you are trying to make a sneaky or otherwise unobserved attack, then a Stealth check is rolled in conjunction with the attack roll.

As for using allies for cover, there are two scenarios. One where a character is trying to use his ally to _hide_ (which seems to be disallowed accoring to RAW), and another where he is using his ally to _cover an action_ he is attempting. This action could very well be an attack (amog other things), which if the character is successful in his Stealth check, could be made with Combat Advantage because his movements and/or intentions were obscured by the intervening person.

Seems logical to me.


----------



## threegee (Jun 28, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> I think it covers the whole action.  I know of no rules that separate an action into beginning, middle, and end.  It's just the action, or it isn't.
> 
> But, even if it's "at the end", I still think it's irrelevant.  I move into cover/concealment as a move action, without making a stealth check.  From the cover/concealment, I use a free action (or minor action) to touch my holy symbol as good luck, in a stealthy manner.  The stealth comes into effect at the end of my free action.  Since you can use stealth with any action which you are trying to do in a stealthy manner, by RAW it works.  I now make an attack that benefits from stealth.
> 
> Now, wouldn't it just make more sense to allow stealth to cover the attack action from the beginning without all that silliness?




Sorry, I am not following you. If I choose to use stealth as part of a move action, when do I roll? Like I said, is it before, during, or after I push my lead figure across the felt? The rules do not say, so do I choose the most advantageous time, or does the DM choose the least advantageous time? E.g., my character dashes from the bushes through the open to end movement behind a tree. Various monsters have LOS at varying times, based on where my figure is positioned. As followup examples, my character either holds fast or attacks following movement.


----------



## infocynic (Jun 28, 2008)

Just tossing in some two cents that any house rule that involves your active stealth check vs enemy passive perception, while nice for lack of dice rolling, tends to be really broken in favor of PCs around level 1. A rogue could easily be at +9 (+4 DEX, +5 Trained) (+2 Tiefling? ) or +12 with skill focus (which might be worth it). Now then... let's look at typical level 1 threats, the Kobolds and Goblins come to mind. Looking at creatures of Level 4 or lower in those families, the highest perception I found was +4. Most were +1. That puts their passive in the 10-14 range. At 14, if you have 12 stealth, you only need to roll a 3. 

Add in any sort of easy way to keep or reobtain stealth after an attack, and the ranged rogue doesn't even have to TRY to get sneak attack damage (not to mention +5 to defenses against melee and ranged for targetting what they can't see).

This makes bardolph's system far less interesting than at first glance.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 28, 2008)

threegee said:


> Sorry, I am not following you. If I choose to use stealth as part of a move action, when do I roll? Like I said, is it before, during, or after I push my lead figure across the felt?




Simultaneous.  Like all other rolls.  There is no differentiating when the roll happens.  I just happens with the move.



> The rules do not say, so do I choose the most advantageous time, or does the DM choose the least advantageous time? E.g., my character dashes from the bushes through the open to end movement behind a tree. Various monsters have LOS at varying times, based on where my figure is positioned.




Ah, now I see where you are coming from, and I think you have a misunderstanding of part of the stealth rules.  If anyone has unobstructed  LOS at any time during the action you are attempting to do in a stealthy manner, they automatically see you without need for a roll.  Period.  It's right there, in black and white, in the rules.  Second part of the gray section under Stealth, section titled Cover or Concealment.

There is never an issue of when it would be more advantageous to roll.  If you qualify to use stealth for an action, you roll simultaneous with the action.  If it could make a difference, it means you didn't qualify to roll a stealth check to begin with.



> As followup examples, my character either holds fast or attacks following movement.




I do not understand this comment.  You can make a stealthy attack.  You roll the stealth check simultaneous with the attack.  You either have stealth versus your target for that attack, or you do not.  It's not dependent on what you did before (though like I said earlier even if it were dependent, you could spend a free action to do it anyway before your attack).


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 28, 2008)

infocynic said:


> Just tossing in some two cents that any house rule that involves your active stealth check vs enemy passive perception, while nice for lack of dice rolling, tends to be really broken in favor of PCs around level 1. A rogue could easily be at +9 (+4 DEX, +5 Trained) (+2 Tiefling? ) or +12 with skill focus (which might be worth it). Now then... let's look at typical level 1 threats, the Kobolds and Goblins come to mind. Looking at creatures of Level 4 or lower in those families, the highest perception I found was +4. Most were +1. That puts their passive in the 10-14 range. At 14, if you have 12 stealth, you only need to roll a 3.
> 
> Add in any sort of easy way to keep or reobtain stealth after an attack, and the ranged rogue doesn't even have to TRY to get sneak attack damage (not to mention +5 to defenses against melee and ranged for targetting what they can't see).
> 
> This makes bardolph's system far less interesting than at first glance.




It's not unbalanced to be able to use your primary ability most of the time.  It's intended to function that way I believe.  Look at that big long list of ways to get combat advantage - that is there so you can take your pick of a variety of relatively easy methods of obtaining combat advantage.


----------



## Xorn (Jun 28, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> It's not unbalanced to be able to use your primary ability most of the time.  It's intended to function that way I believe.  Look at that big long list of ways to get combat advantage - that is there so you can take your pick of a variety of relatively easy methods of obtaining combat advantage.




That's one take on things.  If you read Keep on the Shadowfell you'll find this:



> Tables: The goblins are small enough to fit under the tables, allowing them to *duck out of sight*, attempt a Stealth check, and then (if the check succeeds) *attack from hiding*. The implements on the tables include a total of four blades usable as daggers.




(Emphasis is mine.  Apparently, that is the interpretation of Mike Mearls & Bruce Cordell.)

I feel more vindicated with the way I decided to handle Stealth in combat.

Additionally, did you know that if a level 1 tiefling rogue with a hand crossbow and 18 Dex has cover against a kobold, there isn't even a die roll?  Even on a 1 he will beat their passive perception.

However, if he's trying to get the drop on a *riding horse*, he has to roll at least a 5.  Apparently, that kobold slinger just doesn't have the understanding of ranged weaponry that the horse does.

I'd say I was beating a dead horse this point, but apparently the horse is still alive, because you rolled low on stealth.


----------



## threegee (Jun 29, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> I do not understand this comment.  You can make a stealthy attack.  You roll the stealth check simultaneous with the attack.  You either have stealth versus your target for that attack, or you do not.  It's not dependent on what you did before (though like I said earlier even if it were dependent, you could spend a free action to do it anyway before your attack).




From the page afore mentioned, enemies automatically spot your character when he attacks. Therefore, by your logic, there are no stealthy attacks, unless you assume that a _first_ attack--made stealthily--does not reveal the character, but any subsequent attacks do.

Believe me, I am not looking for people to quote the rules at me. They exist in black and white and are easily read from the books. I am concerned with what the rules need to cover (but not _conceal_ ) in order to address likely possibilities.


----------



## Vengeful (Jun 30, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> If you are going to argue from the exceptions rule, you should choose the actual rule rather than the brief introductory example description of that rule.
> 
> In this case, we want to determine cover. Given that, don't you think it's best if we look at the paragraph titled "Determining Cover"?
> 
> ...




Been looking for a thread about this and just stumbled across this one. This is how I interpreted it as well. 

It has some awkward roleplaying consequences; Logically, they would know which square (abouts) you are in and what direction you are, the route they would take to get to you, etc. And if they had seen you previously, it is safe to assume that they haven't forgotten that you are in the combat.  I solved it in my group by assuming the "Combat Advantage" being a result from the enemy being unable to determine the timing of your attack by seeing your gestures and the precise angle and speed of the incoming attack.

I could be wrong though.


----------



## Fkewl (Jul 2, 2008)

After reading 9 pages on the subject, there's a few conclusion on the stealth i, as dm, will follow

-if you pick your nose/rub yourself/touch your symbol stealthily as an action > well  nobody will see you doing that.. but you don't go "poof ! I'm now stealthy!" - it just means nobody saw you doing that action specifically
If you stealthily grabs the waitress backside, she will see you and everybody else.. not the hand that grabbed her. 

-if you attack stealthily, now opposed stealth roll to passive perception if not in combat 
(no PC's where spotted and no attacks where done to the creatures (no reason to be ultra alert) )
Now.. if there is a guard on alert or they are waiting for an ambush.. that's a active perception

-if in combat, against active perception if not in melee with a PC then a passive perception, 
I think giving that warhammer going for your head a little more attention then that spot of brown cape around a tree is a better option

Using other allies as cover then make a stealthy attack.. hum.. still not sure
I assume the stealthy attack behind a ally is an attack nobody saw coming (too quick and using allies moves against the target) 
Cinematic : the rogue fires is handxbow between your ally's ribs and shield arm right into the throat of the monster.  The monster never saw it coming since the rogue covered is aim and firing behind the ally. 

If you hide after attacking a monster, the monster, unless harrassed by other PC's will use it's turn to move and actively search you (active search).  Or if with ranged weapons, will use is minor action to guess where you are and lob that stinkpot in your face.  It will also tell others to flush you out of your hiding place.. better find a new one ! 

I don't see that many rolls for now, which was the orignial problem.. 

Francois


----------



## komi (Jul 2, 2008)

Fkewl said:


> -if you pick your nose/rub yourself/touch your symbol stealthily as an action > well  nobody will see you doing that.. but you don't go "poof ! I'm now stealthy!" - it just means nobody saw you doing that action specifically
> If you stealthily grabs the waitress backside, she will see you and everybody else.. not the hand that grabbed her.




Hiding your actions is more in the domain of the thievery (sleight of hand).  Stealth as written is about hiding you, not your action.  Though I agree that a DM can apply skills in ways not expressly written.  Perhaps opening a door quietly so the person in the room doesn't notice would be a good example of using stealth.

More to your point, if you are bothered by having someone touch their holy symbol to become hidden, just rule that that action is not sufficient.  Just like a DM could consider a clear glass wall sufficient for cover but not for stealth, an action could also be inadequate for hiding your whole person.


----------



## Xyl (Jul 2, 2008)

Let's start from what we know.

A stealth check is made as part of an action, and covers that action.
It's possible to get ongoing stealth.
Ongoing stealth ends if you don't have cover or concealment.
Ongoing stealth ends if you attack or shout.
It's possible to get make an attack stealthily. (Otherwise, the ability of some monsters to keep stealth after missing an attack would be useless.)
The logical synthesis of those tidbits is that a stealth check must do two things. First, it must hide a single action (a move, an attack, or anything else). Second, it must give you ongoing stealth in at least some cases.

The rules, unfortunately, are silent on when you get ongoing stealth. It's obvious that an attack can't give you ongoing stealth. On the other hand, not having ongoing stealth after moving would defeat the purpose of stealth.


So there are some cases that the rules cover, and some that they don't:

Making a Stealth check as part of a move action gives you stealth for the duration of the action and afterwards.
Making a Stealth check as part of an attack gives you stealth for the duration of the action, but not afterwards.
Making a Stealth check as part of any other action gives you stealth for the duration of the action... and possibly afterwards, it's not clear.
It's also not clear if ongoing stealth will last long enough to make an attack, or if you need to make a separate Stealth check as part of the attack.
Personally, I'm ruling that you only get ongoing stealth if you move, and that the stealth doesn't apply to an attack unless you make a Stealth check as part of the attack. I can see the argument for allowing attacks to keep ongoing stealth until the end, though.


----------



## komi (Jul 2, 2008)

Xyl said:


> Personally, I'm ruling that you only get ongoing stealth if you move, and that the stealth doesn't apply to an attack unless you make a Stealth check as part of the attack. I can see the argument for allowing attacks to keep ongoing stealth until the end, though.



The rules are very clear on what ends stealth: attacking or shouting.  Why would you say that only moving allows you to keep stealth past your action?

Your ruling sounds like the norm is that you lose stealth at the end of the action with the exception being movement.  Rather it should be that you keep stealth at the end of your action with the exceptions being attacking or shouting.

NOTE: The DM has the right to decide other actions besides attacking or shouting that end stealth (e.g. banging your sword on your shield, grabbing onto someone who's not hidden).


----------



## bardolph (Jul 2, 2008)

zoroaster100 said:


> O.k., I think I understand how to use Stealth in combat under most circumstances now.  So long as you have cover or concealment at the time you make an attack, you make a Stealth check to see if you have combat advantage against your target.  Other Stealth checks may be needed in or out of combat to determine if various opponents can see you and/or are aware of you, but even if the target knows what square you are in, if you have cover or concealment you can try to succeed at a Stealth check when you attack to gain combat advantage.  At least that is what I think right now.  It would be great to get a full FAQ from WOTC on this to make completely sure that I am understanding it correctly.



Yeah, I think you hit it.  Most of the time, you can just make a Stealth roll vs Passive Perception (of the target) to "backstab" or "snipe," and be done with it.  And yes, this would also apply for shooting from behind an ally.

If the character does something that doesn't end in an attack, a Stealth roll would create a "condition" of "Hidden 21" (or whatever the roll was), and any creature with a Passive Perception that beats that number can target the character.  Creatures who can't see the character can use a standard action to roll their perception against the original stealth check, and if they succeed, they can target the character.


----------



## komi (Jul 3, 2008)

bardolph said:


> Creatures who can't see the character can use a standard action to roll their perception against the original stealth check, and if they succeed, they can target the character.



You can actually do this as a minor action (PHB p. 281).  It's a special perception check for detecting unseen creatures.  Other uses of active perception require a standard action.


----------



## Zetesofos (Jul 3, 2008)

Stealth, I think we've all seen at this point, is a rather vague and wide arching concept in the D&D Universe.  But, it also seems that stealth is being used for only a few given instances.

Among the various readings on the stealth skill, I would like to point out two things. Perhaps WotC missed this by not making these to things as keywords, but that is possible because these are ultimatly up to the discretion of the DM.  

In any case, in stealth, two words that need to be noted are *Hidden* and *Aware*.

So far, most people, for the sake of combat, having been arguing that they can gain combat advantage by being *Hidden*.  This, I see, is false.  No where does the PHB say you have combat advantage against any character you are hidden against.  What it DOES say is that you have Combat Advantage against any target that is not *Aware* of you.  

Now, what's the difference between the two.  Simple enough, I would think.  *Aware* trumps *Hidden*.  A creature can be *Aware* of another, and yet not know it's location because it is *Hidden.*  However, if something is NOT *Aware* of a creature, it cannot simultaneously perceive it (as measured by perception).  

*Aware*ness is not covered in the PHB, to our problem, so it is left up to the players/DM to detirmine if something is aware or not.  This is a vagueness that perhaps could never be written in stone, but, for the sake of combat, they do mention something.  

"Distracted Creature:.....'In combat, creatures are assumed to be paying attention in all directions'..."  This is what I would use as the best account of *Aware*ness.  In short, once you are in combat with another creature, it is considered to be aware of you, period.  If you think some creatures are aware of you, and others are not, ask yourself why the others might not be *Aware*.  Are they asleep (Unconscious); are they not looking your way (Restrained, Prone are possible).  

For people who use stealth for combat  (i.e. Rogues), this is what happens.  You CANNOT use *Stealth* as a means to give yourself combat advantage if you have just cover or concealment. This means you cannot stand behind a crate, or attack around a pillar, these only provide 'cover' or 'concealment'. And likewise, because of these types of cover, you cannot attack through them.  In combat, you must make your target un*Aware* of you to gain combat advantage against them without any other modifiers.  The closest thing outlined to this awareness involves Superior Cover or Total Concealment. 

As writen "If you have superior cover or total concealment, a creature can't see you, and can't be sure of your exact location.  If it's perception check beats your stealth check, it knows you are present..."  

As this shows, if you can stealth while you have superior cover, or total concealment, and beat the perception of those observing you, you can then have the target lose *Aware*ness to you.  

Again, it seems that this point that *Aware*ness is still vague, and requires agreement and trust between the players and the DM.  However, this looks to be the case, and they are seperated into two cases.  IN COMBAT and OUT of COMBAT.

OUT of COMBAT:  Characters may use stealth to become and remain *Hidden*.  OUT of COMBAT, creatures are not aware of any other creature that is hidden, based on the perception and senses of that sensing creature.  

I would argue at this point that you are considered IN COMBAT *AFTER* you take an action to start combat.  I.E.  any attack made out of stealth from out of combat DOES grant combat advantage.  You could then make a stealth check to remain *Hidden*, but any other creature that wasn't attacked, and rendered senseless to your stealth, is now *Aware *of you.  

IN COMBAT:  In combat, characters may use stealth to become and remain *Hidden *once they have obtained cover or concealment.  If at any point between the start and end of their turn, if they lose this cover or concealment, they immeditatly become un*Hidden*.  Note*  Several Rogue utilities such as chameleon and shadow stride allow characters to remain hidden without cover or concealment, but only under other certain conditions.  

Remember: Being *Hidden* does *NOT* grant Combat Advantage.  Therefore, cover and concealment are not alone sufficient.  

If a character obtains 'Superior Cover' or 'Total Concealment' it may attempt a stealth check to become *Hidden* and ALSO have the target lose *Aware*ness of the character, IF it's stealth check is more than there perception check.  If the character loses 'Superior Cover' or 'Total Concealment at any point between the beginning and end of it's turn, it is no longer *Hidden*, and subsequently, and creature that can perceive it is *Aware *of it.  

That, I believe is the nuts and bolts of stealth.  In the simplest form, for rogues and others using stealth to acquire combat advantage

*Hidden* does NOT give you Combat Advantage alone.  This also makes sense when you see Rogue utility powers such as _Hide in Plain Sight_and _Hide from the Light*.  *_These powers require a character to be *hidden*, and grant that character *Invisibility*, which DOES grant Combat Advantage.  Obviously, if being hidden granted combat advantage by itself, these powers would be of no use.  

For Rogues, I'm sorry to say, but you will not be sneak attacking from behind a 1 square pillar or from the corner of a wall once combat has started, as these at most only provide cover.  Behind a large crate or barrel?  This depends on the DM really, but I would rule that that these provide either 'cover' or 'Superior Cover' depending on the circumstance.  

For example, you could duck behind a crate, and hold your hand above it to fire, but unless you can see your opponent (a stipulation of Combat Advantage, p 279), you can't sneak attack.  If you duck partially so you can see, you might be prone, and take a -2 to attack.  

So, complicated, mayhap, but I think that's the theory behind the whole thing.  In the end, it's really common sense via annoying logic...maybe.  

So, using stealth to attack would work in situations like sneaking up on a guard from a dimly lit wall, attacking through a thick fog bank that you can see through (Blind Fight perhaps), leaping from a tall ledge, or perhaps sending a phasing ammunition right through a wall you can see through.  

Things that wouldn't work would be running behind an obstacle to fire at an enemy, using simple _Shadow Walk_ to conceal yourself, or a thin mist for that matter, or attacking from behind an enemy (which doesn't work because it's cover for ranged attacks only, and besides cover is not sufficient in combat).  

For rogues who want more combat advantage and therefore sneak attack, look to _Hide in plain Sight_ to gain invisiblity, other forms of invisibility, bluff for combat advantage, your teammates to provide it via powers (a sizeable number), and of course, the all important Flanking.  

As for stealth itself.  *Hidden *=/= *Aware.  *
(Targets that are NOT *Aware* of a character grant Combat Advantage to that character).  

As for what *Hidden *and *Aware* mean exactly, that is up to you as a DM and a player.  WotC can't define _Everything_.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 3, 2008)

Zetesofos, I think as this debate has evolved, your interpretation is in the vast (and shrinking) minority.  I think people are (mostly) at the point where cover or concealment allows a stealth check as part of an attack, with a few stragglers.  CustServ is also clearly with the majority on this one.  The remaining debates seem to involve issues like using allies as cover, and what cancels stealth, and when passive/active perception checks are made.

That's not to say the majority cannot be wrong, just that the odds of your interpretation being correct seem pretty small at this point.  I think an objective observer would bet on cover or concealment being the only requirement to make an attack from stealth, even if your target knows which square you are in.


----------



## bardolph (Jul 3, 2008)

infocynic said:


> I like this but I want to clarify how you Hide. No enemies can have "unblocked line of sight to you." What exactly does this cover?



The idea was that, if you are facing multiple enemies, you need cover/concealment against ALL of them.  If you are behind a table but one of your enemies is ALSO there behind the table with you, your Stealth would be blown for everyone.  Again, my assumption was that creatures would always communicate with each other when they spot a Hiding character.

However, I've searched around and saw some CSR posts that clarify that the Stealth rules are meant to be more generous than that.



komi said:


> You can actually do this as a minor action (PHB p. 281).  It's a special perception check for detecting unseen creatures.  Other uses of active perception require a standard action.



Even better.


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 3, 2008)

MEARLS HAS SPOKEN ... in this post on the WoTC forums.



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> Stealth in Combat
> Hey all,
> 
> This is all unofficial advice, not official fodder for the FAQ. But, here's my view:
> ...




And in response to a question by Machus regarding the rogue exploit, deft strike:



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> machus said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





And again at the end of the thread:



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> One thing to keep in mind is that one of the big picture changes in 4e was to move stealth and hiding from spells to skills. In other words, the rogue or ranger are the best PCs for hiding, not the wizard with an invisibility spell.
> 
> The spell is still useful, but it is now much more limited and harder to use over and over again.
> 
> ...




Happy skulking!


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 3, 2008)

bardolph said:


> Yeah, I think you hit it. Most of the time, you can just make a Stealth roll vs Passive Perception (of the target) to "backstab" or "snipe," and be done with it. And yes, this would also apply for shooting from behind an ally.
> 
> If the character does something that doesn't end in an attack, a Stealth roll would create a "condition" of "Hidden 21" (or whatever the roll was), and any creature with a Passive Perception that beats that number can target the character. Creatures who can't see the character can use a standard action to roll their perception against the original stealth check, and if they succeed, they can target the character.




I pretty much like this interpretation. I agree 95% with the second paragraph (the active Perception check is a minor action not a standard action). 

Regarding the first paragraph, I differ slightly: the stealthed attacker doesn't roll a new Stealth check vs. target's passive Perception; instead the target gets an active Perception check against the original Stealth check.

(edit) Ninja'd by Mearls (via redbeard)!  He seems to have close to the same interpretation, though he also has the attacker roll Stealth against passive Perception rather than what I was saying.  Mathematically I'm not sure it makes much difference (I'm not thinking too hard about it).  Maybe it's better aesthetically to have the stealthed attacker roll because he's the acting character.

This part of his quote still seems slightly ambiguous:



> 2. You check to see if you are hidden from a foe when you attack, and lose hiding after completing the entirety of the attack action. You can't attack stealthily; you have to already be hidden when you attack




This could support the "Stealth check when moving to hide, then another Stealth check when attacking from hiding", which I like.  But I think it could be read to mean "Stealth check when moving to hide, then if you win you're stealthed until your attack resolves."  Well, I like the first one so that's how I'll choose to read it.  <shrug>

I'm not going to argue that this is RAW or RAI; I think the rules are just not entirely clear on this point, with that unfortunate business about "targets who are not aware of you" being open to multiple interpretations. I think my interpretation feels fair, does not obviously or grossly conflict with RAW, and is workable at the table - in most cases, the stealther makes one check, and his eventual target makes one check, so just two die rolls.

(Thanks for posting that, redbeard.)


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 3, 2008)

ryryguy said:


> I'm not going to argue that this is RAW or RAI; I think the rules are just not entirely clear on this point, with that unfortunate business about "targets who are not aware of you" being open to multiple interpretations. I think my interpretation feels fair, does not obviously or grossly conflict with RAW, and is workable at the table - in most cases, the stealther makes one check, and his eventual target makes one check, so just two die rolls.
> 
> (Thanks for posting that, redbeard.)




Minor correction to this last bit:
Until the perceiver takes a minor action, the only die rolls are from the stealther.  This is per the PHB and Mearls's post.

I disagree with other parts of your interpretation, but I'm not going to argue.  The 'discussion' seems to have the eyes of the designers and hopefully we'll have more clarifying information.


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 3, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> Minor correction to this last bit:
> Until the perceiver takes a minor action, the only die rolls are from the stealther. This is per the PHB and Mearls's post.




Yeah I'm actually shifting to that POV... 



the_redbeard said:


> I disagree with other parts of your interpretation, but I'm not going to argue. The 'discussion' seems to have the eyes of the designers and hopefully we'll have more clarifying information.




No need to argue about it, but I'm just curious, what do you disagree with? Is it my idea that the stealther has to win one check to hide in the first place, then win another to keep the stealth and combat advantage when he attacks? (Leave aside whether the second check is made by the stealther or the target.) Is it your idea that the first stealth check is sufficient - there is no second check required?

If that's the difference, like I said it seems like part of Mearls' post could be read to support either interpretation. Though like you, I don't really want to argue about it. (Silly enough arguing about ambiguous rules in the book without arguing about ambiguous forum posts by a designer!)

(edit) Bah, I did not read your post closely enough I guess, I see that you do indeed say there is only one roll required.  No biggie, but what else did you disagree with then?  There wasn't much else to my interpretation to disagree with.


----------



## threegee (Jul 3, 2008)

Zetesofos said:


> As for stealth itself.  *Hidden *=/= *Aware.  *
> (Targets that are NOT *Aware* of a character grant Combat Advantage to that character).
> 
> As for what *Hidden *and *Aware* mean exactly, that is up to you as a DM and a player.  WotC can't define _Everything_.




Great post. A bit novel in your approach, but I can find no obvious flaws in your logic.

Of course, there is every indication that the designers did not really intend the rules as they were handed unto us, but those are the breaks. I think at this point, I can sensibly houserule as needed, but that is a topic for a different board. Meanwhile, lets hope Mearls posts more.


----------



## Xyl (Jul 3, 2008)

komi said:


> The rules are very clear on what ends stealth: attacking or shouting. Why would you say that only moving allows you to keep stealth past your action?



If the enemy knows where you are, and you stealthily do something which isn't movement, the enemy still knows where you are.


----------



## infocynic (Jul 3, 2008)

Let's assume there exists a condition called "hidden" generated by Stealth. How you get there is your problem.  What are the benefits of being hidden? Most people agree that it grants combat advantage. What about + to defense? If a monster tries to attack you with a melee or ranged attack are they at -5 to hit for targetting what they can't see? To me that's a much bigger concern than the Rogue getting his extra backstab damage and the reason my players currently can't use Stealth after the start of combat (that and we didn't have good simple versions like some of the ones posted here when we started the campaign, so I agreed not to use it against them in exchange for not letting them use it).


----------



## Sanzuo (Jul 3, 2008)

This thread still around?

I'm curious if there's been any further development about stealth from the official source.  Or are we assuming that they're leaving it as is written?


----------



## bardolph (Jul 3, 2008)

mearls said:
			
		

> 4. Remember that intelligent foes will share information. If one of the four hobgoblins spots a hidden PC, that guy can tell his allies where the PC is hiding.



Good to know, but what is the consequence of this?  Does it grant a bonus to other creatures' Perception?  Or does it automatically allow all enemies within earshot to target the hidden character?  For ease of play, I would probably rule the latter.



			
				ryryguy said:
			
		

> Regarding the first paragraph, I differ slightly: the stealthed attacker doesn't roll a new Stealth check vs. target's passive Perception; instead the target gets an active Perception check against the original Stealth check.



I'm thinking about actual gameplay.  It's simply easier play to allow the attacker to make two rolls: 1 "sniping" roll for Combat Advantage, and 1 "attack" roll to hit.  With two different-colored d20s, they could roll them both at once.  Besides, I think it's in the spirit of 4e that attackers roll dice, not defenders.



infocynic said:


> Let's assume there exists a condition called "hidden" generated by Stealth. How you get there is your problem.



By making a Stealth check?



> What are the benefits of being hidden? Most people agree that it grants combat advantage. What about + to defense? If a monster tries to attack you with a melee or ranged attack are they at -5 to hit for targetting what they can't see? To me that's a much bigger concern than the Rogue getting his extra backstab damage and the reason my players currently can't use Stealth after the start of combat (that and we didn't have good simple versions like some of the ones posted here when we started the campaign, so I agreed not to use it against them in exchange for not letting them use it).




In terms of Combat Advantage, Mearls brought forth a good point, which is that "the math assumes that rogues gain Combat Advantage on almost every attack."  So, when in doubt, let 'em roll Stealth.

As for the targeting issue, I also don't see that as a big problem, since monsters will probably have plenty of other targets to choose from.  If the Stealth roll missed the Passive Perception of any monsters, they obviously can target the character.

If the last action of the PC is an attack, don't allow a Stealth roll to "re-hide."  Instead, assume that the PC is Spotted and therefore targettable.


----------



## bardolph (Jul 3, 2008)

Double post.


----------



## DM_Blake (Jul 3, 2008)

Leugren said:


> For me, the passive vs. active debate comes down to a matter of pure pragmatism. I don't want to roll 40 Perception checks if there are 40 combatants on the field, so I just rule that everyone is effectively taking 10 on their rolls which produces a completely average result for each creature; no really high rolls and no really low rolls. This also has the added advantage that I don't have to keep track of which individual opponents actually made their rolls and which ones failed. Tracking is instead by creature type, since all creatures of the same basic type have the same passive Perception score (e.g. all of the Kobold Skirmishers succeed, but all of the Kobold Minions fail).
> 
> This arguably has the downside of making things easier or more predictable for the rogue, but I'm willing to sacrifice predictability for the sake of keeping the game from grinding to a screeching halt. If there are just a few opponents involved, I'll go ahead and make one roll for each to keep the rogue from getting too complacent.




Sure, you could do that.

Me, I do it another way.

First, since a room full of kobolds would all have pretty much the samme passive perception value (since they are all similar kobolds), taking 10 (using passive perception) pretty much means every kolbold sees him (bad rogue stealth roll) or no kobold sees him (average or good rogue stealth roll). There is very little possibility that a few kobolds happen to be looking the right way at the right time and spot him (which is what a good perception roll would represent if I did take the time to roll each one).

Of course, the target of the attack needs an immediate perception check to know if combat advantage is granted. But the other 39 kobolds don't need any check at all. I see no benefit, now, on the rogue's turn, to knowing which of the kobolds can see him and which cannot. 

Most actions the rogue might do will break his stealth anyway. So, one kobold needs to see him (or fail to see him), the rogue takes his action and consequently becomes unstealthed.

One stealth roll, one perception roll. Done.

But, assuming the rogue's action doesn't blow his stealth, I have him write his stealth roll on the battlemat near his figure.

On my turn, when I'm moving all those kobolds, I will look at the tactical situation.

Some kobolds will naturally go after the wizard, or the fighter, or whoever, because that's the PC threatening them. Essentially, I decide it like the rogue has no cover/concealment/stealth at all - which kobolds would attack the rogue if they knew he was there, and which kobolds would not attack him even if they can plainly see him. 

I move all the kobolds who wouldn't attack the rogue without rolling their perception checks. Who cares if they see him or not since they aren't going to attack him either way?

For the remaining kobolds who would attack the rogue, I roll their perceptions before they act. One perception roll, then move the kobold accordingly (attack the rogue if he saw him, or go look for the rogue if he didn't, or ignore the rogue and attack someone else in some cases. Next kobold. One perception roll, then move the kobold accordingly. Etc.

This works easiest for me. No blanket "everyone fails" or "everyone succeeds" based on passive perception. No rolling for 40 kobolds. No remembering perception rolls made 5 minutes ago during the rogue's turn when it's finally my turn to move the kobolds.

Piece of cake.


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 3, 2008)

bardolph said:


> I'm thinking about actual gameplay. It's simply easier play to allow the attacker to make two rolls: 1 "sniping" roll for Combat Advantage, and 1 "attack" roll to hit. With two different-colored d20s, they could roll them both at once. Besides, I think it's in the spirit of 4e that attackers roll dice, not defenders.




Yes, I'm convinced.  I will change to have the attacker/stealther make the role.

*(STOP THE PRESSES!  Somebody actually convinced to change his mind due to arguments posted in a rules thread!!!!)  *


----------



## DM_Blake (Jul 3, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> But, even if it's "at the end", I still think it's irrelevant. I move into cover/concealment as a move action, without making a stealth check. From the cover/concealment, I use a free action (or minor action) to touch my holy symbol as good luck, in a stealthy manner. The stealth comes into effect at the end of my free action. Since you can use stealth with any action which you are trying to do in a stealthy manner, by RAW it works. I now make an attack that benefits from stealth.




This is hokey. 

No way a game would create stealth rules this ridiculous. I hope.

And I'm quite certain that this is not even close to what D&D 4e is trying to do with stealth.



Mistwell said:


> Now, wouldn't it just make more sense to allow stealth to cover the attack action from the beginning without all that silliness?




Good.

It seems we agree.

This interpretation is a million times more practical.

Now, please stop writing that other stuff, even to point out a broken interpretation, because I think a bunch of people on this forum think that your broken version is what's intended by RAW. Don't confuse them more...


----------



## clearstream (Jul 3, 2008)

bardolph said:


> In terms of Combat Advantage, Mearls brought forth a good point, which is that "the math assumes that rogues gain Combat Advantage on almost every attack." So, when in doubt, let 'em roll Stealth.




CA can be achieved in a lot of ways other than stealth, but being hidden has other ramifications that to my mind should be considered when granting the check.

Also, I felt WotCMearls was pretty clear that you need to be hidden to get CA on an attack from stealth, and that you do not make an attack stealthily.

That means one stealth roll - to get hidden. And then no stealth roll - to do the attack.

-vk


----------



## DM_Blake (Jul 3, 2008)

threegee said:


> Sorry, I am not following you. If I choose to use stealth as part of a move action, when do I roll? Like I said, is it before, during, or after I push my lead figure across the felt? The rules do not say, so do I choose the most advantageous time, or does the DM choose the least advantageous time? E.g., my character dashes from the bushes through the open to end movement behind a tree. Various monsters have LOS at varying times, based on where my figure is positioned. As followup examples, my character either holds fast or attacks following movement.




Are we still talking in terms of whether or not your next action gains combat advantage?

Because if that's all we're trying to determine here, then you don't roll stealth at all while you dash from the bushes to the tree.

Once your dash (move action) is completed, you begin your attack (standard action). Now, you check for Stealth.

Since having stealth would affect your attack roll, you want to determine stealth before you determine the outcome of your attack roll, so might as well determine the stealth part first.

So, your character leans out around the tree and flings a spear at a bad guy. You announce you're doing this stealthfully. Roll your stealth check opposed by the bad guy's perception check (roll or passive as you or your DM prefers). Success means you are stealthy and have combat advantage, failure means you are not stealthy and don't have combat advantage.

After your attack is completed, you are automatically unstealthed, because the rules for stealth say that attacking or shouting breaks the stealth.


----------



## DM_Blake (Jul 3, 2008)

Xyl said:


> Let's start from what we know.
> 
> A stealth check is made as part of an action, and covers that action.
> It's possible to get ongoing stealth.
> ...




The flaw here is that you would allow everyone two chances to have stealth during an attack.

Example:

I move behind a tree. Roll for stealth. I then attack, hoping to have stealth for combat advantage. I can now roll for stealth on the attack.

If you rule that my first roll for stealth gives me "ongoing stealth" that applies to my attack, then I have a decision to make: was my stealth roll really good? If it was, no need to make a stealth roll during my attack since I know I have "ongoing stealth" and will have a great chance to get combat advantage. But if my stealth roll was a bad roll, then I simply announce that I'm attempting to attack stealthily and make a new stealth roll for my attack option.

Two chances to get a good stealth roll, and either one can grant me combat advantage.

I don't think the RAI ever meant to grant everyone two chances at stealthy combat advantage.

I think the only reasonable ruling here is that if you announce you are going to attack, you automatically forego any "ongoing stealth". Because this is an attack, and because the PHB says attacks break stealth, your attack breaks your "ongoing stealth" automatically.

You can, of course, attempt to attack stealthily, following the RAW and the RAI, by including a stealth roll with your attack action.

This way, only the stealth roll during the attack action can determine whether the attack is a stealthy one deserving combat advantage.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 3, 2008)

DM_Blake said:


> The flaw here is that you would allow everyone two chances to have stealth during an attack.




Not really. The flaw to my mind is making a player try to stealth twice, to get one good attack.



DM_Blake said:


> If you rule that my first roll for stealth gives me "ongoing stealth" that applies to my attack, then I have a decision to make: was my stealth roll really good? If it was, no need to make a stealth roll during my attack since I know I have "ongoing stealth" and will have a great chance to get combat advantage. But if my stealth roll was a bad roll, then I simply announce that I'm attempting to attack stealthily and make a new stealth roll for my attack option.




If your DM deems that appropriate then you could do that, were you a nervous sourt of rogue.



DM_Blake said:


> You can, of course, attempt to attack stealthily, following the RAW and the RAI, by including a stealth roll with your attack action.
> 
> This way, only the stealth roll during the attack action can determine whether the attack is a stealthy one deserving combat advantage.




By RAW an attack ends hiding. Hence you hide, then you do your charge, or deft strike, or ranged attack or whatever, to sneak attack.

Edited to add that your DM would probably not grant a stealth check unless your action is appropriate, since that remit is given her on PHB178. So polishing your cross might not do it, but hunkering down probably would.

-vk


----------



## komi (Jul 3, 2008)

ryryguy said:


> (edit) Ninja'd by Mearls (via redbeard)!  He seems to have close to the same interpretation, though he also has the attacker roll Stealth against passive Perception rather than what I was saying.  Mathematically I'm not sure it makes much difference (I'm not thinking too hard about it).  Maybe it's better aesthetically to have the stealthed attacker roll because he's the acting character.



(Because graphs are fun   and this was similar to what I did for the Improved Init vs. Danger Sense discussion...)

(*EDIT:* I don't know why message board is distorting my image.  If you view the image directly it will be much clearer.)

Mathematically there is a difference when rolling against active perception and passive perception.  Here's a chart of the chance of success on stealth vs. perception for both active and passive checks.  The x-axis shows the difference in skill modifiers between stealth and perception.  Positive means the person attempting stealth is better than the person trying to perceive.







So, if the stealther is better than the perceiver (delta modifier is positive), it's better for the stealther to roll against passive.

We can take the change from active to passive as a modifier on an active check.  Say you're stealth skill modifier is five higher than the person you're hiding from.  From the chart above, you have an 80% chance of success on a passive check (e.g. 1d20+5 vs. DC 10).  What modifier would you need on the active chart to achieve an 80% chance of success?  Looking at the blue line on the chart above, you get about 7 (6.84 from interpolation).  So if we look at chance of success, rolling with a +5 versus a passive check is about the same as rolling with a +7 versus an active check.

(1d20+5 vs. DC 10) ~= (1d20+7 vs. 1d20)

So you get an effective +2 bonus to your stealth when your DM decides you can roll against passive to save dice rolling.   Here's a chart that shows this.  The blue line is the actual interpolated results.  The red dots show the same data rounded to the nearest integer.






The break even point where active and passive are the same is -4.  At 9, you're getting a +10 to your check.  You can mentally see this if you think that (1d20+9 vs. DC 10) is always a success.  To get a guaranteed success for an active check you need to be +19 better than your opponent.  (1d20+19 vs. 1d20) will always succeed.  You have an effective +10 to your check when rolling against passive.

I'm not writing this to show anything is broken nor to state an opinion, but rather to better convey the math behind it.  You can go with passive checks, but be aware that people using stealth a lot will be specialized and will very likely be in the positive x-axis domain above.  In fact, once you're +9 better than you're opponent it's impossible to be seen until they attempt a minor action perception.  Conversely, requiring mostly active checks means a lot of dice to be rolled and might painfully slow the game down.  So when we understand both sides, we as DMs can make better decisions.


----------



## infocynic (Jul 3, 2008)

komi said:


> So you get an effective +2 bonus to your stealth when your DM decides you can roll against passive to save dice rolling.




Does the math imply that we can simply impose a -2 penalty to the Stealth check, compare it to passive perception, and have roughly the same results as if we had rolled active perception? I'm not asking for miracles, I know it won't be exactly the same, but I'm willing to accept a little variance for a lot of ease of use.


----------



## Sanzuo (Jul 3, 2008)

komi said:
			
		

> ...




Okay, you know this stealth debate is getting ridiculous once the graphs come out.


----------



## komi (Jul 3, 2008)

infocynic said:


> Does the math imply that we can simply impose a -2 penalty to the Stealth check, compare it to passive perception, and have roughly the same results as if we had rolled active perception? I'm not asking for miracles, I know it won't be exactly the same, but I'm willing to accept a little variance for a lot of ease of use.




I meant to write about that but forgot.  With my +5 example a -2 penalty is about right.  But if the stealther is +7 versus the opponent, it doesn't balance out.  However, you might find it's close enough.

If you want to use passive checks to save time, then it would be quite impractical to look up on a chart exactly what penalty to apply since that would take longer than just rolling.  But you could look at your rogue's bonus and compare them to some typical monsters.  If you're rogue isn't completely tricked out in stealth, maybe a flat -2 is about right.  But if he's consistently +8 or +9 higher, then you'd need a higher penalty.  Just look at the graph for something appropriate.

And this is only for modeling passive checks as active.  Sometimes the rules call for passive checks, in which case you shouldn't apply any penalty.



Sanzuo said:


> Okay, you know this stealth debate is getting ridiculous once the graphs come out.




I would say exciting!


----------



## clearstream (Jul 3, 2008)

komi said:


> ...until they attempt a minor action perception.




PHB186 deems active perception a standard action. I know somewhere along the community became informed it was a minor action. Can anyone let me know where/when that was?

-vk


----------



## komi (Jul 3, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> PHB186 deems active perception a standard action. I know somewhere along the community became informed it was a minor action. Can anyone let me know where/when that was?




PHB p. 281 at the bottom of the page.  It's poor editing that this is not mentioned in the skill description.  Since this is in the context of searching for unseen opponents, other uses of active perception require a standard action.


----------



## Xorn (Jul 3, 2008)

I don't know if I should be happy, sad, or embarrassed that I started this thread.  

I'm going to quit resisting the urge to post in it, and dive right back in.  Combat advantage is granted for reasons related to stealth either because the target can't see you, or isn't aware of you.

The attack at the start of a combat is obviously because they aren't aware of you, even if you aren't totally out of sight/invisible.  What happens in combat after you have been spotted was the original intent of this thread.

The question originally posed is--can I regain combat advantage through stealth in combat?  That means that through stealth, I must:

1. Make the target unable to see me.
OR
2. Make the target unaware of me.

There are no clear rules for this, at all.  What we KNOW:

A Bluff check makes them lose sight of you for a moment.
Total Concealment makes them lose sight of you.
Superior Cover makes them lose sight of you.
Regular cover/concealment allows you to make stealth checks.

But there is no indication that stealth can make someone no longer see you (or no longer be aware of you) with a stealth check.  There is also no indication that stealth will not allow this--so that's the line that divides the two camps, really.

I think we all agree that with Bluff or Total Concealment or Superior Cover, the target can't see you, and you get combat advantage.  What's left is these two splits:

1. You can make a stealth check in combat to make yourself unseen by a target if you have cover/concealment, as a (insert) action.  (Most agree on Move action, as kissing your good luck charm does not hide you.)

2. You can't make a stealth check in combat to make yourself unseen by a target if you have cover/concealment, you must get out of sight.  You may of course use stealth to move back into regular cover/concealment _undetected_, though.

I'm in camp #2.  The split seems to be pretty even between the two.  I'm not saying either camp is wrong, only that neither camp can legitimately claim to be right.  My latest discoveries in running Keep on the Shadowfell and reading the Monster Manual on the toilet (you know you do, too) is that the Tactics never once mention making a stealth check in combat to gain combat advantage, even though it's often mentioned to make a stealth check before combat to gain combat advantage.

The only mention of gaining combat advantage during a fight is a goblin fight where they are completely out of sight, then can make a stealth check to attack from hiding.  I'm still not saying I'm right--I'm just saying that reaffirms the choice of camp I made.


----------



## infocynic (Jul 3, 2008)

komi said:


> I meant to write about that but forgot.  With my +5 example a -2 penalty is about right.  But if the stealther is +7 versus the opponent, it doesn't balance out.  However, you might find it's close enough.
> 
> If you want to use passive checks to save time, then it would be quite impractical to look up on a chart exactly what penalty to apply since that would take longer than just rolling.  But you could look at your rogue's bonus and compare them to some typical monsters.  If you're rogue isn't completely tricked out in stealth, maybe a flat -2 is about right.  But if he's consistently +8 or +9 higher, then you'd need a higher penalty.  Just look at the graph for something appropriate.
> 
> ...



Unless of course we can model it with a simple formula 
looks like -5 to +1 is about even or close enough.
+2 to +4 is about 1 off
+5 to +7 about 2 off
+8 to +10 ... 3 off is close enough probably
+11 to +13 ... 2 off
+14 to +16 ... again, 1 off isn't perfect but honestly your odds are so good at +16 that soaking up a -1 penalty isn't going to kill you. 

So you just have to remember that it starts at +2 with a +1 and goes up every +3 more you have until 10 and then it goes back down.

I wouldn't even worry about the times when stealth is lower than perception... it's probably not going to be more than -5 or you're really not going to try, but if a player really insisted I would give the bonus ... I suppose.


----------



## Sanzuo (Jul 3, 2008)

Xorn said:


> I don't know if I should be happy, sad, or embarrassed that I started this thread.
> 
> I'm going to quit resisting the urge to post in it, and dive right back in.  Combat advantage is granted for reasons related to stealth either because the target can't see you, or isn't aware of you.
> 
> ...




Hey Xorn.

I think it's worth mentioning that so far in my game that I've been running for a few weeks, we've been essentially going by the #1 method you mentioned above.  I would have to say it's working pretty well and hasn't really been disruptive.  The rogue in the group is still working hard to get a good position on the grid, consistently getting in massive sneak attack damage rolls, but not so much that it feels like he's getting them for free.

However it does seem like the group is steamrolling through the encounters, so I've been working on custom-tailoring them to actually be challenging.  We'll see how it goes, but so far so good.


----------



## komi (Jul 3, 2008)

infocynic said:


> Unless of course we can model it with a simple formula



If that works for you , go for it.    I would be worried that even taking the time to take the difference in stealth and perception would be more work than just rolling.  So I would guess that having a flat penalty, or maybe a low and a high penalty (e.g. -2 and -5) would streamline things.  But really I haven't tried to run a game with any of this stuff, so I'm only guessing.

With only a small effort, you could find out your rogue's stealth in advance and use your table to write down all the creature's modified passive perceptions.  That way during combat you don't have to do any math.


----------



## Xorn (Jul 3, 2008)

Sanzuo said:


> Hey Xorn.
> 
> I think it's worth mentioning that so far in my game that I've been running for a few weeks, we've been essentially going by the #1 method you mentioned above. I would have to say it's working pretty well and hasn't really been disruptive. The rogue in the group is still working hard to get a good position on the grid, consistently getting in massive sneak attack damage rolls, but not so much that it feels like he's getting them for free.
> 
> However it does seem like the group is steamrolling through the encounters, so I've been working on custom-tailoring them to actually be challenging. We'll see how it goes, but so far so good.




This is probably the best supporting statement I can see for this topic. I feel like every talking point there is has been covered (and I realize that people new to the thread are entitled to get their say in), and it's really boiled down to those two interpretations.

I'd add that running with camp #2, I've had no issues, either--my rogue still achieves sneak attack like crazy, but he needs to get in there and flank to do it most of the time. Now he was playing peek-a-boo with a goblin at one point in KotS, and everytime the goblin lost sight of him he'd stealth for combat advantage and have a readied attack. I really don't think it would break the game if I let him roll stealth to hide with regular cover/concealment, either.

The existing tactics I'm reading don't come across that way, and my rogue player personally doesn't like the idea that any character that starts their turn in cover and plans to attack from range should roll stealth. If they don't, they are passing up a risk-free chance at combat advantage. The idea of the -2 Stealth dwarf hiding behind a crate before hurling a throwing hammer and an oath to Moradin at a goblin just makes my skin crawl.

To quote my rogue player, "I don't like the idea of it being easier to gain combat advantage from range than in melee."


----------



## infocynic (Jul 3, 2008)

komi said:


> If that works for you , go for it.    I would be worried that even taking the time to take the difference in stealth and perception would be more work than just rolling.  So I would guess that having a flat penalty, or maybe a low and a high penalty (e.g. -2 and -5) would streamline things.  But really I haven't tried to run a game with any of this stuff, so I'm only guessing.
> 
> With only a small effort, you could find out your rogue's stealth in advance and use your table to write down all the creature's modified passive perceptions.  That way during combat you don't have to do any math.



You're right. I looked at it again and came up with this:

-7 or worse: You roll stealth + 2 vs. that PP
-6 to +2: You roll stealth vs. that PP
+3 to +6: You roll stealth -2 vs. that PP
+7 or higher: You roll stealth -4 vs. that PP



			
				Xorn said:
			
		

> The existing tactics I'm reading don't come across that way, and my rogue player personally doesn't like the idea that any character that starts their turn in cover and plans to attack from range should roll stealth. If they don't, they are passing up a risk-free chance at combat advantage. The idea of the -2 Stealth dwarf hiding behind a crate before hurling a throwing hammer and an oath to Moradin at a goblin just makes my skin crawl.




Maybe a penalty for failing your stealth check by 4 or more ... the enemy is not only very clear on where you are busy NOT hiding, but he gets that extra second of warning to gain a +2 (just like combat advantage only backwards) to his defense?


----------



## infocynic (Jul 4, 2008)

Double post


----------



## Foxman (Jul 4, 2008)

*Using Stealth to gain Combat Advantage against Target(s) in Combat*

Go through these steps for each Target.

1) Are you carrying a light source? 
_If YES:_ Stop, you cannot use Stealth to gain Combat Advantage. (Stealth: Pg 188 PHB)
_If NO:_ Continue to (2).

2) Is the Target aware of you AND able to see you? 
_If YES:_ Continue to (3). 
_If NO:_ Stop, you have Combat Advantage over the Target. (Combat Advantage: Pg 280 PHB)

3) Do you have Cover OR Concealment vs the Target?
_NOTE:_ Creatures do NOT grant Cover for Stealth checks, only for ranged attacks. (Cover: Pg 280 PHB) 
_If YES:_ Continue to (5)
_If NO:_ Continue to (4)

(4) Do you make AND succeed an opposed Bluff vs Insight check vs the Target?
_NOTE:_ You may make an opposed Bluff vs Insight check as a standard action. (Bluff: Pg 183 PHB)
_If YES:_ Continue to (5)
_If NO:_ Stop, you do not have Combat Advantage against the target.

(5) Do you make AND succeed an opposed Stealth vs Perception check vs the Target?
_NOTE:_ You may make an opposed Stealth vs Perception check (apply any modifiers) as part of an action. (Stealth: Pg 188 PHB)
_NOTE:_ You only roll once and use that result. All Targets roll separately vs that number.
_NOTE:_ If you succeed on this check the target is considered to be unaware of you. If you shout or make an attack, the target is considered to be aware of you. (Stealth: Pg 188 PHB)
_If YES:_ Stop, you have Combat Advantage over the Target.
_If NO:_ Stop, you do not have Combat Advantage against the target.


*NOTE:* This does NOT deal with trying to remain concealed when a creature is searching for you. This only addresses the issue from attackers perspective.


----------



## Xorn (Jul 4, 2008)

Foxman said:


> *Using Stealth to gain Combat Advantage against Target(s) in Combat*
> 
> Go through these steps for each Target.
> 
> ...




You lost me at 5.  (And at 3, that's a lot of dice rolls every round.)  Nothing says the target is mysteriously unaware of you.

The text for the success reads, "You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view."

Just as you can read, "unheard and hidden" I can read that the unheard and hidden from view is a result of avoiding notice.  And you have already been noticed, so avoiding is out of the picture.  You need to escape their notice (bluff, total concealment, superior cover) before you can start avoiding it again.  (My opinion, I can't prove my ruling any more or less than you can't prove yours.)


----------



## bardolph (Jul 4, 2008)

Heh... the more I read this thread, the more convinced I am that FEWER rules and FEWER rolls is better.

Wanna snipe for combat advantage?  Easy as 1-2-3:

Get cover/concealment.
Roll Stealth (vs Passive Perception).
Make your attack. 

Wanna hide?  Again, 1-2-3

Get cover/concealment.
Roll Stealth.
Write down the check result.

A creature with Passive Perception higher than the check result automatically sees the character and can target him.  A creature whose Passive is less than the check result can use a Minor Action to make a Perception check (DC=Stealth result), and if successful, can target the PC.  NOTE: If the creature doesn't care about targeting the hidden PC, don't bother rolling.

That's it.  Simple and RAW.


----------



## Tonester (Jul 4, 2008)

^^ is how I have decided to do it.  Having cover/concealment as a ranged class not only makes it harder for your enemies to attack you, but at times, it can make it easier for you to attack them.  I think of it this way:

A combat round last a whole 3-6 seconds.  There is tons of stuff going on.  If you are a ranger ducked behind a crate which grants you cover to a monster, you SHOULD get to roll d20 every attack (from cover) to see if you can pop up from behind the crate and get an attack off with combat advantage without the monster being fully aware of you doing so.  And, if you want to move from behind that crate without being noticed, then move and make a stealth check in doing so.  If it succeeds, you get to wherever you are going unnoticed/unheard/unseen.


----------



## ogre (Jul 4, 2008)

Wow, graphs, flow charts, rolls to augment rolls that augment other rolls...
Honestly, take a step back and remember the design philosophy of 4E. Less is more. There's no way I want perception rolls and stealth rolls on every turn of every combat. uhhg.
Xorn, I'm on board with your take. Nice and simple. You need to go out of sight (total cover/concealment/inviso) to get CA from stealth. So, technically if such were around, you could get a SA in everyother round if you went in and out of cover. Sounds about balanced as SA is +2d6 rather than the more reliable 1d6 of curse/quarry.


----------



## Tonester (Jul 4, 2008)

ogre said:


> There's no way I want perception rolls and stealth rolls on every turn of every combat. uhhg.




I laugh every time I see someone say this.  Who is making this many rolls and why?  They are passive checks.  If there are 15 creatures on the map and only 1 of them is remotely interested in making an attack on a stealthy rogue, then maybe have that 1 make a non-passive check.  Do the non-passive checks as a need-to-check basis.  It isn't like every time a Rogue stealths everything on the map has to make a dice roll.  That is obsurd.



> Xorn, I'm on board with your take. Nice and simple. You need to go out of sight (total cover/concealment/inviso) to get CA from stealth.




You can do it that way if you want, but that isn't what the rules state.  If you and your players are fine with that then great.

You do NOT need to be out of sight to have combat advantage from stealth.  Stealth != invisible.  Stealth == unaware/unseen/unnoticed/unheard.  Why is this so complicated?  We've already been told that Rogues should be getting CA on nearly every round somehow.  Why are DMs so against this?


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 4, 2008)

bardolph said:


> Heh... the more I read this thread, the more convinced I am that FEWER rules and FEWER rolls is better.
> 
> Wanna snipe for combat advantage?  Easy as 1-2-3:
> 
> ...




You have my vote.

Then there is the whole OTHER set of questions arising from how someone can/can't target you.  (Sigh.)  I've gone through that on the WoTC forums.
Granted, the rules could spell out some things more clearly or given more examples.  But it is still amazing how so different an interpretation can be made from the same set of words.

Is this how religious schisms start?


----------



## clearstream (Jul 4, 2008)

bardolph said:


> Heh... the more I read this thread, the more convinced I am that FEWER rules and FEWER rolls is better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sure, but the Rogue doesn't even need that. They can get CA loads of ways, and designers haven't yet come forth and said the defensive advantage of hiding is built into the math, nor that every player rolling for stealth anytime they vaguely qualify is built into the math.

*The simple answer is Xorn's second option*, with the caveats that a) sometimes cover or concealment would do, for example if you got there unobserved or used a power that granted a check, and b) that you can use a minor action to gain hiding if it makes sense, since minor actions are intended to set up the scene for more exciting standard actions. The minor wouldn't move you, of course.

-vk


----------



## ogre (Jul 4, 2008)

Tonester said:


> I laugh every time I see someone say this.  Who is making this many rolls and why?  They are passive checks.  If there are 15 creatures on the map and only 1 of them is remotely interested in making an attack on a stealthy rogue, then maybe have that 1 make a non-passive check.  Do the non-passive checks as a need-to-check basis.  It isn't like every time a Rogue stealths everything on the map has to make a dice roll.  That is obsurd.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Whom you ask? Why the rogue who wants to hide behind his melee allies every turn to gain CA, or worse, not be able to be targeted. Check out the WotC boards and look for a thread with a title something like "why my warlock won't use stealth in combat anymore..." for an example of play.

As far as what the rules are, I think the dozens of threads on this topic demonstrates that no one knows any better than anyone else what is RAW.

I don't think it's complicated at all, hence my remark on flow charts etc. Actually it's quite simple. Either start the encounter hidden or go out of sight to re-hide. Anything else grants you the standard -2 to be attacked for concealment/cover. Simple.


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 4, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> Sure, but the Rogue doesn't even need that. They can get CA loads of ways, and designers haven't yet come forth and said the defensive advantage of hiding is built into the math, nor that every player rolling for stealth anytime they vaguely qualify is built into the math.
> 
> *The simple answer is Xorn's second option*, with the caveats that a) sometimes cover or concealment would do, for example if you got there unobserved or used a power that granted a check, and b) that you can use a minor action to gain hiding if it makes sense, since minor actions are intended to set up the scene for more exciting standard actions. The minor wouldn't move you, of course.
> 
> -vk




Xorn's second option invents a requirement  - to be unobserved - that doesn't exist in the rules.


In fact there is a direct contradiction:

Opposed Checks: Stealth vs. Perception (see the
table for modifiers to your check). If there are *multiple
observers*, your Stealth check is opposed by
each observer’s Perception check.

You can stealth even while observed.  There is no mention that you must already be stealthed.  You can stealth while observed - as long as the required cover, concealment or distraction is present.

*Yes, DM fiat can always say no.  The DM can also send down blue bolts.  What's your point?


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 4, 2008)

The more I review the rules on this, the more I think that Stealth isn't about being seen, but about awareness - that is, Stealth can make your opponent _unaware_ of you if your DM deems the check permissible (skills overview), but it can't make you invisible (because it doesn't say so).

Notice that the Combat Advantage list differentiates between "unable to see" and "unaware," as separate entries.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 4, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> Xorn's second option invents a requirement - to be unobserved - that doesn't exist in the rules.
> 
> 
> In fact there is a direct contradiction:
> ...




RAW provides that meeting the pre-condition of cover or concealment does not mean that a stealth check must be granted. CSR clarified that and nothing in the RAW or said by designers contradicts it.

Or, to consider it another way, I guess you don't intend your rebuttal to rely on your making a case that my argument is supported only by appealing to the principle of DM fiat?

You bring an apposite piece of RAW to the table, but I feel if you look at it there isn't any contradiction. Xorn's second case is saying that in order to granted a stealth check _once you are in cover or concealment_, you need to get to that cover or concealment unobserved. Once you are there, indeed there may be multiple potential observers (enemies who have partially blocked or obscured LOS to that position), and that is what your stealth check opposes.

It may also be worth considering that Stealth conflates Move Silently and Hide, while Perception conflates Listen and Spot.

-vk


----------



## SableWyvern (Jul 4, 2008)

I posted my take on the Stealth/Hiding rules in the houserules forum. Although I tweaked things a bit, I'm pretty sure my system is 98% by the book, except for the introduction of miss chances instead of "guess the hidden target's square".

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=234378

While the rules in the PHB are scattered here and there, I think they're pretty straightforward once you condense them down to their essential parts.


----------



## Xorn (Jul 4, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> The more I review the rules on this, the more I think that Stealth isn't about being seen, but about awareness - that is, Stealth can make your opponent _unaware_ of you if your DM deems the check permissible (skills overview), but it can't make you invisible (because it doesn't say so).
> 
> Notice that the Combat Advantage list differentiates between "unable to see" and "unaware," as separate entries.




Beautiful Roxlimn!

I was taking a particularly good crap last night, and I got to page 279-280 of the PHB and saw Combat Advantage.  I'm looking at it and I read the list of reasons you can have Combat Advantage, again.

Unable to see the attacker (page 281) -- Okay, that's rules for cover/concealment, and total cover/concealment says specifically the target can't see you.  The only mention of stealth is if someone wants to attack what they can't see.

Unaware of you (page 188) -- Well that's the stealth rules.  Wait, there's not one mention of stealth granting combat advantage because the target can't see you.  Only because they are unaware of you!

By that reading--Stealth keeps someone unaware of you, while Total Concealment/Superior Cover keeps someone from being able to see you.  Either state grants combat advantage... but neither section tells me that stealth can make someone unaware of me after they are aware.

So after reading this during my late night crap (and again comparing my reading from every tactics section of every creature in every module/book), this only served to reinforce my decision to be in camp #2.  Heck, even the stealth rules only mention gaining combat advantage for the target being _unaware_.  It's really ironic that after I read this, someone posts exactly what I saw right before me. 

As far as the rules as written not supporting camp #2, yes they do--if I read them my way.  I could _choose_ to interpret them your way, and be in camp #1, but the whole point is neither of us can say we're right, period.  I can say I'm right _if_ I interpret what is printed my way.

And rogues should have combat advantage most of the time--it's pretty easy to achieve.  You've got two rounds that you should have a free combat advantage.  The first round (target unaware), and a Bluff round.  Not to mention if you have a half-decent initiative, you can get a third round free with surprise.  If you haven't gotten a flank set up within three rounds, you should probably look into playing an archer ranger.

Between a warlord and a fighter, our rogue has combat advantage on multiple targets pretty much at will.


----------



## infocynic (Jul 4, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> If you haven't gotten a flank set up within three rounds, you should probably look into playing an archer ranger.




So a ranged rogue isn't a valid build? Someone who sneaks in the shadows and then fires off crossbow bolts or hurls shuriken with deadly accuracy? Without sneak attack, his damage will be awful, especially since his weapon die is smaller without burning a feat just to keep up with the archery ranger, who at least gets his quarry damage too.

I like most of your interpretation, Xorn, but I hate neutering classes because lousy rules or bad writing prevent them from reaching their potential.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 4, 2008)

A Ranged Rogue would probably benefit greatly from his allies being able to inflict the Daze, blinded, or stun status effects, to have the opponents grant combat advantage.  It seems only fair that a Ranged Rogue who doesn't risk getting attacked by close range attacks would have a harder time getting damage in.

*Xorn:*

Actually the entry that really got me thinking was Line of Sight rules.

Under "Seeing and Targeting," the rules say:

Line of Sight: The first question is what you can see in an encounter
area—that is, what is in your line of sight.  To determine whether you can see a target, pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of the target’s space. You can see the target if at least one line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or an effect—such as a wall, a thick curtain, or a cloud of fog—that blocks your vision.

That is, a creature who has concealment doesn't get to block Line of Sight.  For that matter, Stealth doesn't say that either.  The use of Stealth accesses neither Total Concealment, Invisibility, nor Line of Sight.  If it was meant to make you unseeable, you'd think it would reference any of these rules.  It does not.

There ARE powers that block line of sight.  There are powers that say they grant total concealment or block line of sight.  There are even powers that just say "enemies cannot see you," and that's pretty specific to the phrase "cannot see you."

Stealth doesn't say any of that, where it should have, if it was meant to access such rules.

I would say that if you wanted to use Stealth to regain enemy unawareness, you would first have to break Line of Sight, then you can use Stealth to move into an area with Concealment and remain hidden.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 4, 2008)

infocynic said:


> So a ranged rogue isn't a valid build? Someone who sneaks in the shadows and then fires off crossbow bolts or hurls shuriken with deadly accuracy? Without sneak attack, his damage will be awful, especially since his weapon die is smaller without burning a feat just to keep up with the archery ranger, who at least gets his quarry damage too.
> 
> I like most of your interpretation, Xorn, but I hate neutering classes because lousy rules or bad writing prevent them from reaching their potential.




The advantage of working from range is that it becomes easier to regain hiding. You're back from the action and your allies are between you and the bad guys. In play that yields more options for moving into new positions unobserved. I also allow distractions to cover movement.

You can also always use the powers that specifically grant you a stealth check, irrespective.

-vk


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 4, 2008)

That's good.  The Bluff skill can also be used to create a distraction to allow a Stealth check in combat.  The implication is that trying to hide even if you have concealment is generally ineffective in combat - you have to create a big enough distraction first so that your enemies lose track of you and can then become unaware of you again.


----------



## Foxman (Jul 4, 2008)

Xorn said:


> You lost me at 5. (And at 3, that's a lot of dice rolls every round.) Nothing says the target is mysteriously unaware of you.
> 
> The text for the success reads, "You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view."
> 
> Just as you can read, "unheard and hidden" I can read that the unheard and hidden from view is a result of avoiding notice. And you have already been noticed, so avoiding is out of the picture. You need to escape their notice (bluff, total concealment, superior cover) before you can start avoiding it again. (My opinion, I can't prove my ruling any more or less than you can't prove yours.)




It appears from your later post that you finally figured out that Unaware =/= Hidden.

Also if you read what I posted again you will only see two spots to roll dice. 1) Bluff vs Insight (and only sometimes) and 2) Stealth vs Perception. And you only really need to roll vs the target you are attempting gain combat advantage over if you are planning on attacking.

Becoming unaware of a creature means that you've lost track of them in combat. You can always attempt to use a perception check to locate them again.


----------



## Xorn (Jul 4, 2008)

So I'm sitting here entering "Heathen" (the Dungeon adventure) into Fantasy Grounds, and I'm reading one of the encounters.  The tactics for the NPCs indicate they will attack, then retreat and hide while another that looks just like them attacks from a different direction.

The tactics say that in order to hide, they have to retreat to these trees they attacked from.  There's cover everywhere, and it's Dim Light by default (concealment everywhere) but they _have_ to retreat to these trees.

In Features of the Area, because of the thick foilage around the trees, they provide total concealment.

I'm just saying... every single tactics blurb I read supports my notion--Stealth can keep an enemy unaware of you.  Total Concealment/Superior Cover can make you unseen.  Once you're seen, I've not read anything that says Stealth suddenly makes you unseen.

And stop trying to convince me--I'm talking to the people that haven't made up their mind which camp they're in.  I'm set in how I'm running it--and besides, the rogue in my group flat out stated that he wouldn't use stealth in combat like that even if I allowed it, because it feels stupid to him.

re: Dice Rolls
If you have two people interested in attacking from range, if there is any cover/concealment on the battlefield (a corner is cover, remember) then they should roll.  They are giving up a risk-free chance at combat advantage if they don't.  Any creature they can see should roll against them if it's an active check, because the PC is going to probably attack the one that gives them combat advantage.  Now it's just as likely there are 2 ranged attackers on the ENEMY side, too, who should be doing the same thing. So that's 1 stealth + 5 perceptions per ranged attacker, 24 rolls per ROUND.  That's a shitload of dice, my friend.   It's most likely more dice to be rolled for Stealth than all other d20 rolls in combat--combined.  Even if Mike Mearls was the next person to post, and he said it's active vs active, I'd call him an idiot and house rule.

Okay, I wouldn't call Mearls an idiot, but if he wants to come in and say which interpretation is right, that would be swell.

But I've found a dozen indications of how bad guys will use stealth in their tactics, and every single one of them that mentions becoming unseen after being spotted involves Bluff, Total Concealment, or Superior Cover.  Not one time have I ever seen mention of rolling Stealth to make your opponent unable to see you once you have been spotted.

Only unaware of you, UNTIL you are noticed.


----------



## AngelBob (Jul 4, 2008)

I have been following both sides, listening to all. And I have come to a conclusion.

The problem with the Stealth rules as written, is that they make NO distinction between Stealth in or out of Combat, nearly every other skill does!

I, like Xorn, began questioning how it LOOKED like the skill worked in combat upon reading creature and encounter descriptions. "Why is Sniper even an ability!? If the Goblin Sharpshooter can just re-stealth right after attacking from behind cover, why does it matter that he didn't lose stealth in the first place? Just in case he got a really good roll the first time?"

I have to say, I agree with Xorn on this. The rules are the rules, but they obviously seem to infer the use of common sense more than the letter of the law in some cases.

"The goblin sharpshooter is hidden when the PCs march up into his ambush, from the safety of his sniper nest, he begins taking shots at the PCs tussling with Cutters below. Missing twice, the PCs dont notice him until... Bam, a bolt in the wizards shoulder! 'Up there!' screams the Wizard, as the Goblin runs into the dense foilage, only to re-emerge behind some bushes to try again..."

I really dont think the Goblin was meant to just keep ducking down every turn and popping up for the CA.

So why all the ambiguity as to how this works in combat exactly? Why no set rules for conditions like "Hidden" or "Unaware"? Because we weren't meant to use it in combat. Don't you think that Wizards would have given stealth the whole "keyword" treatment should it be meant to be a major part of combat?


----------



## Machus (Jul 4, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> I would say that if you wanted to use Stealth to regain enemy unawareness, *you would first have to break Line of Sight,* then you can use Stealth to move into an area with Concealment and remain hidden.




So by your rule, players who want to use stealth to gain a simple combat advantage (not complete surprise) need to:

1. Obtain total concealment (breaking LOS)
2. Then obtain concealment/cover
3. Then they can attempt a stealth check

That's complete and total surprise at this point. That's far and away better than a simple combat advantage. 

Why not just get the entire party to do it then get a free surprise round? To me you're making a house rule for stealth-CA, making it as difficult as it is to get a surprise round. 

*Determine surprise: *
_The DM determines whether any combatants are surprised. If any combatants notice enemy combatants without being noticed in return, the aware combatants gain a surprise round._​


----------



## clearstream (Jul 4, 2008)

Machus said:


> That's quite a house rule.
> 
> So players who want to use stealth to gain a simple combat advantage (not complete surprise) need to:
> 
> ...




Surprise would be helpful for round one, but there's scant RAW to go on for introducing more than one surprise round per encounter. Meaning that it's a one round trick that Rogues don't need anyway (because they get CA on every enemy with lower initiative in round one).

Bluffs, distractions, and amazingly *rogue powers* all give you ways to earn another stealth check to get back into hiding.

-vk


----------



## Xorn (Jul 4, 2008)

Um, gaining total cover is actually really easy.  Step around a corner.  Bam.

What I don't appreciate is being told I'm inventing things.  I'm listing page numbers where I've read every single thing I'm interpreting.  Disagree if you like, that's where discussion happens, but quit telling me that what I'm quoting isn't printed.  It's right there in black and white.

I keep trying to break it down to it's simplest form, because the bottom line is--every single application of Stealth I'm seeing in printed materials is simple--nothing complicated.  No need for a flowchart, or six dice rolls per person making ranged attacks from cover/concealment.

My final interpretation (restated in the simplest form) is:
Stealth grants combat advantage in combat by preventing awareness.
Total Concealment grants combat advantage in combat by preventing visibility (as does Superior Cover).

I've pointed out repeatedly that the only time any published material mentions gaining combat advantage through stealth in combat requires Total Concealment or Superior Cover.  No one wants to address that talking point (that disagrees with it), and that's fine, but that's _why_ I'm more convinced by my interpretation than anything else I'm seeing.

Seriously.  Read Heathen.  Read Keep on the Shadowfell.  Read the Monster Manual.  Read "Combat Advantage".  To determine if a target is unaware you are directed to read Stealth.  To determine if a target can see you at all you are directed to Concealment.

And by the way, let your rogues Stealth every round from range with no roll most of the time (check the average passive perception he has to beat).  Since neither one of us can prove we're right unequivocally, we're both using "house interpetations", thanks.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 4, 2008)

Interesting feat I just noticed that may be relevant to this debate:



> Secret Stride (Paragon Level, PHB pg. 205):
> Prerequisite: Trained in Stealth.
> Benefit: You do not incur penalties to your Stealth checks if you move at full speed *while hiding or sneaking*.  You still take the full penalty if you run.




Hiding *OR* sneaking?

Unless I missed something (which is entirely possible), that may be the missing piece of data from the Stealth skill rules.  Perhaps "sneaking" is that other aspect of the stealth skill which involves not being hidden but still being "stealthed" for some issues (like combat advantage)?


----------



## clearstream (Jul 4, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> Interesting feat I just noticed that may be relevant to this debate:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There are a minority of methods to stealth while moving. For example, if the whole move is made behind cover or in appropriate lighting or atmospheric conditions. I suppose that would be 'sneaking'.

-vk


----------



## Machus (Jul 4, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> Meaning that it's a one round trick that Rogues don't need anyway (because they get CA on every enemy with lower initiative in round one).




First that was to point out how arbitrary the house rule of needing total concealment to use steatlh in combat is.  It's on par with getting total surprise.  And surprise confers an extra action typically, which can be combined with CA, so it's not something "rogues wouldn't need anyway".  It's irrelevant, because it's all house ruling at that point, and this about the core stealth rules.



> Bluffs, distractions, and amazingly *rogue powers* all give you ways to earn another stealth check to get back into hiding.
> -vk




And this is what you tell rogue players after they learn of your house rule?  This is justification of nothing.  They can already stealth in combat per the rules, AND do these other things, each of which has its own pros and cons.  

Is it just the defensive stacking you're opposed to, I can understand to a degree, but not the CA part.   If an assassin cannot gain advantage when in the shadows, (making the appropriate rolls) it's just not a rogue worth playing.

Can you give an example of when you think the rules lead to something absurd as justification?  I'm genuinely curious.  Is your issue with cover stacking with concealment (is that even the case?)


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 4, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> There are a minority of methods to stealth while moving. For example, if the whole move is made behind cover or in appropriate lighting or atmospheric conditions. I suppose that would be 'sneaking'.
> 
> -vk




The feat only applies to movement (at full speed), so it can't be referring to sneaking as using stealth while moving (or else there would be no purpose for the reference to hiding as well).

By the wording of the feat, it seems to mean you can move at full movement using stealth and be "hidden", or you can move using stealth and be "sneaking".  So, what is the difference between the two?


----------



## bardolph (Jul 4, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> Hiding *OR* sneaking?
> 
> Unless I missed something (which is entirely possible), that may be the missing piece of data from the Stealth skill rules.  Perhaps "sneaking" is that other aspect of the stealth skill which involves not being hidden but still being "stealthed" for some issues (like combat advantage)?



Traditionally, "hiding" means making sure no one can see you, and "sneaking" means making sure no one can hear you.  3e divides this between "Hide" and "Move Silently" skills.  4e combines them into a single Stealth skill.

In 4e, "Hiding" and "Sneaking" are mechanically equivalent.  They both translate to Stealth.


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 4, 2008)

Xorn said:


> Um, gaining total cover is actually really easy.  Step around a corner.  Bam.
> 
> What I don't appreciate is being told I'm inventing things.  I'm listing page numbers where I've read every single thing I'm interpreting.




Please tell me again where in stealth does it say that being unobserved is a requirement to be stealthed.  

No where on page 188 does it say "must be unobserved" to be stealthed.




> I keep trying to break it down to it's simplest form, because the bottom line is--every single application of Stealth I'm seeing in printed materials is simple--nothing complicated.  No need for a flowchart, or six dice rolls per person making ranged attacks from cover/concealment.




Only the stealth doubters are suggesting that so many die rolls are required.



> My final interpretation (restated in the simplest form) is:
> Stealth grants combat advantage in combat by preventing awareness.




Preventing awareness and/or hidden.  Success:  Avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view.



> Total Concealment grants combat advantage in combat by preventing visibility (as does Superior Cover).
> 
> I've pointed out repeatedly that the only time any published material mentions gaining combat advantage through stealth in combat requires Total Concealment or Superior Cover.  No one wants to address that talking point (that disagrees with it), and that's fine, but that's _why_ I'm more convinced by my interpretation than anything else I'm seeing.
> 
> Seriously.  Read Heathen.  Read Keep on the Shadowfell.  Read the Monster Manual.  Read "Combat Advantage".  To determine if a target is unaware you are directed to read Stealth.




If that means anything it means that stealth makes the target unaware of where you are.  It does not make being already unseen/unnoticed a requirement of stealth.


Functionally, what is the difference you are suggesting between unaware and hidden from view?


----------



## Machus (Jul 4, 2008)

Xorn said:


> My final interpretation (restated in the simplest form) is:
> Stealth grants combat advantage in combat by preventing awareness.
> Total Concealment grants combat advantage in combat by preventing visibility (as does Superior Cover)




This differentiates nothing, rogues still get CA.

Premise: Rogue is seen at the start of the combat.

1. Rogue moves to concealment, and makes a stealth check, on success is unseen, unheard, and no longer noticed.

- Because the rogue is not seen, they have total concealment, they stll have CA per your rule.

2. If you reject that despite its consistency, then we move on to testing awarenes. The rogue is unseen/unheard/unnoticed - how by definition can the opponent "be aware" of the rogue?  They cannot.

Test it yourself.
The rogue aims his crossbow at them and smiles, are they aware of this? No.
Let's get exotic. The rogue is an eladrin, she teleports to a square on the opposite side of the opponents, directly behind them, still in the shadows, and makes a stealth check and succeeds. How can the opponents by your arbitrary definition "be aware" of the rogue? They cannot. You'd be trying to deny that rogue CA.


----------



## Klaumbaz (Jul 5, 2008)

Just my bit of fluff to try and show how you can just have cover to make a sneak attack.

your in a forest, lots of trees, the rogue is ducking, diving, juking behind/around them,  you see him most of the time, but occasionally loose sight of him for just a moment, That moment when he has an advantage over you is when he decides to toss a shuriken your way or stick to a tree and wait for you to come close, or even scamper up the tree out of your sight.

Does the attack come from behind his back? in front of him? From low to the ground? from up high? In front of you? behind you? Aimed at your head? your chest? at your hamstring? You dont know exactly where the attack is coming from, or exactly where he aimed, because well, that scoundrel is one sneaky git and fights dirty. Your just hoping your observant enough that you can try to see it coming.


----------



## Xorn (Jul 5, 2008)

The rules for Combat Advantage (which is what I started talking about to begin with) direct you to read Stealth on 188 for "is the target aware of you" and Concealment on 281 for "can the target see you".  Quote every interpretation of the stealth mechanics--and that's all they are (interpretations)--but you can't show me the hard rule that makes you right and me wrong.  I can't show you anything that makes me right and you wrong--the difference is I'm not claiming to have found that.

I'm quoting why I interpret what I have--you're telling me I'm wrong.  I'm actually tired of reading the exact same points that don't acknowledge anything I've mentioned about every demonstrated suggestion for how to use stealth in combat in Tactics sections throughout the Monster Manual, Kobold Hall, Keep on the Shadowfell, and Heathen.  In every single case, they support what I suggested, and not once do they support what you're suggesting.

But I won't tell you you're wrong.  I'll just say I have enough reason to think I'm right that I don't need your approval to feel okay about it.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 5, 2008)

bardolph said:


> Traditionally, "hiding" means making sure no one can see you, and "sneaking" means making sure no one can hear you.  3e divides this between "Hide" and "Move Silently" skills.  4e combines them into a single Stealth skill.
> 
> In 4e, "Hiding" and "Sneaking" are mechanically equivalent.  They both translate to Stealth.




That sounds logical, but do you have rules support for it? Stealth mentions the term hide and hidden a lot, but it doesn't mention sneaking from what I recall.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 5, 2008)

From CustServ:

Question:



> Secret Stride Feat
> Prerequisite: Trained in Stealth
> Benefit: You do not incur penalties to your Stealth checks if you move at full speed while hiding or sneaking. You still take the full penalty if you run.
> 
> ...




Answer:



> There is no difference between hiding and sneaking. Read that ability to say 'when using the stealth skill' instead.


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 5, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> That sounds logical, but do you have rules support for it? Stealth mentions the term hide and hidden a lot, but it doesn't mention sneaking from what I recall.




Page 188.  Success:  you avoid notice, *UNHEARD* and hidden from view.

Also in the fluff description of the skill:
"slink past guards, slip away without being noticed and sneak up on people without being seen or *heard*."


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 5, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> The more I review the rules on this, the more I think that Stealth isn't about being seen, but about awareness - that is, Stealth can make your opponent _unaware_ of you if your DM deems the check permissible (skills overview), but it can't make you invisible (because it doesn't say so).
> 
> Notice that the Combat Advantage list differentiates between "unable to see" and "unaware," as separate entries.




Mechanically it might not make a difference.  

Either way:  You don't know where they are.

If you knew they were out there, you don't forget that they are out there - but you're not sure where.


I think a lot of the confusion is due to the list of different items for success and the lack of precise definition of them.

I think the success status has a list because stealth can mean different things in different situations.


The stealth success: avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view.

I've always read "hidden from view" as unseen.
Others read it as ... well, I don't understand how people read "hidden from view" as still being seen, but not perceived.  This is not a jedi mind trick skill.

Avoid notice certainly means to not be perceived.

Examples of - 
Hidden from view:
If you're stealthing in shadows:  you slip into the shadows and you are indistinguishable from the darkness.  You're unseen.

Unheard:
If you're trying to walk silently past a sleeping guard:  you step quietly.

Avoid Notice:
If you're trying to melt into a crowd:  the guards looking for someone of your description in the crowd can't find you amongst the sea of faces.

Those are all uses of the stealth skill but each fits different aspects of the success status.


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 5, 2008)

Xorn said:


> The rules for Combat Advantage (which is what I started talking about to begin with) direct you to read Stealth on 188 for "is the target aware of you" and Concealment on 281 for "can the target see you".  Quote every interpretation of the stealth mechanics--and that's all they are (interpretations)--but you can't show me the hard rule that makes you right and me wrong.  I can't show you anything that makes me right and you wrong--the difference is I'm not claiming to have found that.
> 
> I'm quoting why I interpret what I have--you're telling me I'm wrong.  I'm actually tired of reading the exact same points that don't acknowledge anything I've mentioned about every demonstrated suggestion for how to use stealth in combat in Tactics sections throughout the Monster Manual, Kobold Hall, Keep on the Shadowfell, and Heathen.  In every single case, they support what I suggested, and not once do they support what you're suggesting.
> 
> But I won't tell you you're wrong.  I'll just say I have enough reason to think I'm right that I don't need your approval to feel okay about it.




Ok.

Find the error in logic in this examination of the requirements for stealth.  If you think this interpretation is incorrect, please point out exactly where it breaks for you.

Looking on page 188, I see that there are two conditions to attempt a stealth check:  
1. cover/concealment
2. distraction (but NOT concealment)

Distraction is throwing your observer's attention away from you.

Distraction is NOT a requirement for stealthing with cover/concealment.

Ergo:  your observer can have his/her attention on you but you can still stealth if you have cover/concealment.


If you always needed to have a distraction in order to stealth (ie, even in cover) I would also think that you couldn't attempt stealth if the target was aware of you.


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 5, 2008)

Xorn said:


> My final interpretation (restated in the simplest form) is:
> Stealth grants combat advantage in combat by preventing awareness.
> Total Concealment grants combat advantage in combat by preventing visibility (as does Superior Cover).
> 
> I've pointed out repeatedly that the only time any published material mentions gaining combat advantage through stealth in combat requires Total Concealment or Superior Cover. No one wants to address that talking point (that disagrees with it), and that's fine, but that's _why_ I'm more convinced by my interpretation than anything else I'm seeing.




Ok, so when a rogue, in combat against enemies who are aware of him, makes a successful Stealth check using only simple concealment or cover, you're saying he does not "break awareness", and doesn't gain combat advantage.

What benefit _does_ he gain, then?  Absolutely nothing?  

If so, that makes the Stealth rules, which unambiguously state that you can use simple concealment/cover pretty strange.  (Which of course doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong!  )

Xorn, you're basing your interpretation very carefully on the rules.  There's one part of your argument, however that does not seem to come directly out of the rules (unless I missed it): that once a character is aware of another character during combat, he cannot lose that awareness unless the other character becomes unseen. I can't deny there's a certain common sense logic to that contention, but is it in the rules?


----------



## Xorn (Jul 5, 2008)

ryryguy said:


> Ok, so when a rogue, in combat against enemies who are aware of him, makes a successful Stealth check using only simple concealment or cover, you're saying he does not "break awareness", and doesn't gain combat advantage.
> 
> What benefit _does_ he gain, then?  Absolutely nothing?
> 
> ...




For me it's in the rules: A success on stealth AVOIDS notice--it doesn't erase it.  If you've already been spotted, tough.  The tactics I'm reading throughout all the published material (read Heathen, man it's full of examples) support the notion that Stealth will not give combat advantage once you've been spotted.

the_redbeard:
What I keep saying, and I'll ask you to pay special attention this next part, is:

I'm not saying you are incorrect in your interpretation.  I'm saying that neither one of us can really be sure.  I find the whole picture seems to be more supported (TO ME) in what I'm interpreting now.  I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm just asking you to stop saying I'M wrong.  We're both interpreting the unclear rules, here.

I keep mentioning all these examples where the tactics sections tell you how the monsters will use stealth, and _not one time_ have they mentioned using stealth to gain combat advantage without getting completely out of sight _first_.

One description even reads--these tables can be tipped over with a DC 15 Strength check.  After that a small creature has superior cover if they are prone behind the table.  They may make a stealth check to attack with combat advantage.

I mean, .  That's pretty supportive of my idea.

But I'm NOT saying you're wrong to choose camp #1.


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 5, 2008)

Xorn said:


> For me it's in the rules: A success on stealth AVOIDS notice--it doesn't erase it. If you've already been spotted, tough.




That's putting a pretty fine point on things... where is "notice" equivalent to "awareness"?  All the other stuff you've been quoting is talking about awareness.  (I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I think the rest of your argument is pretty well supported, but this seems to me to be its weakest point, is all.)

Also, just to clarify - in your interpretation Stealth does absolutely nothing in the "already aware, simple cover/concealment" case?  Is that correct?


----------



## clearstream (Jul 5, 2008)

Machus said:


> First that was to point out how arbitrary the house rule of needing total concealment to use steatlh in combat is.




Ah. In that case I may have misunderstood you because *I have not been proposing* making the RAW on PHB178 more consistent for your players WRT stealth by recording a ruling of *'needing total concealment'*. We have a mutual misunderstanding there.

*What I have been proposing* as a means to make the RAW on PHB178 more consistent for your players, taking into account that Cover or Concealment have been clarified by CSR to not mean that a stealth check must be granted, is that once your enemies are aware of you, then in order to regain hiding you have to do something other than just stay put and rub your rabbits foot.

That something is to get into a new position unobserved or find a way to make them think you aren't still where you were. I think this is the house rule you are objecting to. I've also made it clear that a Bluff, or a distraction, would work equally well, and elsewhere I posted the example you give using Teleport. Teleport can get you to a position literally unobserved, such as your example of a position behind your enemies, since you do not pass through the intervening squares.




Machus said:


> Is it just the defensive stacking you're opposed to, I can understand to a degree, but not the CA part. If an assassin cannot gain advantage when in the shadows, (making the appropriate rolls) it's just not a rogue worth playing.
> 
> Can you give an example of when you think the rules lead to something absurd as justification? I'm genuinely curious. Is your issue with cover stacking with concealment (is that even the case?)




I have no issue with cover or concealment. The RAW is clear. Having cover or concealment alone is not necessarily sufficient to be granted a stealth check. I feel an abundance of other RAW is highly suggestive that you need to do something cunning to get there unobserved. Why would you need Shadow Stride at all, if you can simply move from one hidden position, across clear enemy lines of sight, and into any cover and regain stealth?

*As you say, it is the defensive stacking that I mind. CA? Rogues should have it nearly every turn.* I also mind something that others don't seem to, which is granting lots of crummy dice rolls to players who aren't rogues and might not even have stealth trained. Some feel their players will just go along with them and ignore the risk free roll for a fantastic defensive advantage. They feel it's okay that, that can spin of several more rolls per turn as enemies have to take minor actions to respot them.

So if all you want is Assassins to get CA--which we agree on--this is one heck of a painful way to grant it. Unless you say that stealth doesn't do anything more than give CA... which I can't see being very intuitive in terms of understanding the RAW.

-vk


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 5, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> Ah. In that case I may have misunderstood you because *I have not been proposing* making the RAW on PHB178 more consistent for your players WRT stealth by recording a ruling of *'needing total concealment'*. We have a mutual misunderstanding there.
> 
> *What I have been proposing* as a means to make the RAW on PHB178 more consistent for your players, taking into account that Cover or Concealment have been clarified by CSR to not mean that a stealth check must be granted




If I say, "mother may I", can I stealth?

honestly - obviously there will always be extenuating circumstances.  But baring a good reason, if I had concealment, I'd expect to be able to try to stealth.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 5, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> If I say, "mother may I", can I stealth?
> 
> honestly - obviously there will always be extenuating circumstances. But baring a good reason, if I had concealment, I'd expect to be able to try to stealth.




Heh. That is a flippant way of raising the valid objection that rulings arising from the RAW on PHB178 might vary from DM to DM. However, they won't vary at my table.

You will know that if you have a power that grants a check, or if you or your allies somehow create a distraction, or if you use Bluff, or if you use Teleport, or if you do pretty much anything reasonable that gets you into cover or concealment in a way that breaks enemy observation of you, then I'll grant you a check.

If you can't be bothered doing any of those things, then no, whining for your mummy won't help you 

-vk


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 5, 2008)

Xorn said:


> For me it's in the rules: A success on stealth AVOIDS notice--it doesn't erase it.  If you've already been spotted, tough.  The tactics I'm reading throughout all the published material (read Heathen, man it's full of examples) support the notion that Stealth will not give combat advantage once you've been spotted.
> 
> the_redbeard:
> What I keep saying, and I'll ask you to pay special attention this next part, is:
> ...




LOL.
Mighty big of you to be so generous and not even try to find what was wrong in my LITERAL approach.  

Awareness/Notice/Hide
You can be aware that someone is around without knowing where they are.
Check out the 'targeting what you can't see' rules for explicit demonstration.  Know that they are out there - but not where.

Awareness as prohibitive for stealth and/or combat awareness:
IF awareness prohibited stealth, why isn't it listed as prohibitive or for unawareness as a requirement?
Concealment specifically is a condition where the perceiver can SEE the STEALTHER... yet this allows stealth.
IF awareness prohibited combat advantage, why is only unawareness listed as one of many different conditions granting combat advantage?
Do you have answers to those questions?
Or are you going to just avoid the issue again?


Your supporting secondary info, re: Total concealment:
Total concealment penalizes the perception check by 10 (!) making it very effective for even poor stealthers.
It's a great tactic if you can get it - +10!  I'll have to remember it.  As it is advisable no matter our interpretation, I don't think it is necessarily supporting either side.

Here's something:
Gnome Arcanist power:
Aura of Illusion (Illusion) aura 5; the gnome arcanist and all allies
in the aura *gain concealment and can hide in the aura.*

Yes, it does mention that is uses the Aura until ready to attack (which I'm sure you'll take as supporting your argument.)  Why not after?  Because it is a choice: grant my allies a chance for combat advantage, or attack.
And again, no limit on when this can be used.  In the power description, it is straight: concealment->hide, no mention of when it can be used.  Sounds like my interpretation.

Here's Mike Mearls again:


			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> One thing to keep in mind is that one of the big picture changes in 4e was to move stealth and hiding from spells to skills. In other words, the rogue or ranger are the best PCs for hiding, not the wizard with an invisibility spell.
> 
> The spell is still useful, but it is now much more limited and harder to use over and over again.
> 
> ...




Why, why would it be important to take out the high perception monsters?  Because later in the combat, it will be easier to stealth!  The monsters will surely know you are there, combat has started, but stealth is still a good thing  - an important tactic - to use.

No reason to take out the high perception monsters after a combat has started otherwise.


----------



## the_redbeard (Jul 5, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> Heh. That is a flippant way of raising the valid objection that rulings arising from the RAW on PHB178 might vary from DM to DM. However, they won't vary at my table.
> 
> You will know that if you have a power that grants a check, or if you or your allies somehow create a distraction, or if you use Bluff, or if you use Teleport, or if you do pretty much anything reasonable that gets you into cover or concealment in a way that* breaks enemy observation* of you, then I'll grant you a check.
> 
> ...




The requirement to avoid enemy observation is an invention of yours, not RAW, not RAI.  It is a figment of your 3.5 imagination.


Concealment is specifically a condition where you can be observed.  Yet it is listed as a requirement for stealth.  
If being unobserved was a requirement, why isn't it listed?
Why is concealment listed, but not being unobserved in concealment?

I pointed this out to Xorn earlier and he declined to answer the question:

Find the error in logic in this examination of the requirements for stealth. If you think this interpretation is incorrect, please point out exactly where it breaks for you.

Looking on page 188, I see that there are two conditions to attempt a stealth check:
1. cover/concealment
2. distraction (but NOT concealment - you can do this in broad daylight under their nose)

Distraction is throwing your observer's attention away from you.

Distraction is NOT a requirement for stealthing with cover/concealment.

Ergo: your observer can have his/her attention on you but you can still stealth if you have cover/concealment.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 5, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> Looking on page 188, I see that there are two conditions to attempt a stealth check:
> 1. cover/concealment
> 2. distraction (but NOT concealment - you can do this in broad daylight under their nose)
> 
> Ergo: your observer can have his/her attention on you but you can still stealth if you have cover/concealment.




You asked for a logical analysis of your argument. You assert

*A is a pre-condition for B*

You might then be asserting

*If A, then B*

Which is not proven by the logic. I will however assume you assert

*If A, then possible B!*

Fair enough. We know that in fact

*If A and D, then B*

I'm endeavouring to pin down that D in a consistent, easy to adjudicate way, that is well supported by the body of published material. But let's say we abhor letting our DM make judgements under PHB178. In that case

1. How is U10 Shadow Stride useful?
2. Once enemies are alert, wouldn't it be easier to grant Rogues perpetual CA than roll all those minor action active Perceptions?
3. Why are there 13 other ways to achieve CA, if Stealth alone will do?
4. Why do Rogues have powers that help them get CA, if Stealth alone will do?
5. Isn't it kind of fun for Rogues to have their cunning challenged? Rather than 'Sneak attack!' 'Use Stealth' 'Sneak attack!' 'Use Stealth'...
6. Stealth is cost free. Why doesn't _everyone_ use Stealth all the time, even untrained?
7. Does Stealth _only_ give CA; or does it do other things too? Like defensive advantages superior to those Cover or Concealment usually give?

-vk


----------



## Xorn (Jul 5, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> The requirement to avoid enemy observation is an invention of yours, not RAW, not RAI.  It is a figment of your 3.5 imagination.
> 
> 
> Concealment is specifically a condition where you can be observed.  Yet it is listed as a requirement for stealth.
> ...




I don't know if you were busy being offended that I didn't say, "Oh my god, you're right!" but what I specifically said that I would not say you're wrong, because I can't.  Why don't I point out that no one has addressed anything about the advised tactics for creatures using stealth YET.

How is me bolding "AVOID notice, unheard and unseen" and different than you bolding "avoid notice UNHEARD and UNSEEN"?  I read that if you don't AVOID notice, you are not unheard and unseen.  I don't read REMOVE notice anywhere.  There difference between us is I'm NOT trying to tell you that you're way is wrong.  If I wanted to use you're ruling, I could present plenty of arguments to support it--but I can't clearly refute that the way I suggest is wrong.

You seem to think you can, but restating evidence towards your idea over and over and over and over and over.  I _can't_ disprove your side, and I'm not trying to.  I _can_ make points that support both sides, and I think I can make _more points_ to _myself_ that support my side more than yours.  But I still don't think either of us is wrong.

Why does Combat Advantage only direct you to Stealth under "Unaware of you (page 188)" and only direct you to Concealment for "Unable to see the attacker (page 281)"?  That is all I need to read to be done with why I'm going with my way.

I can further feel good about myself as a person for choosing my way after seeing that the _cause_ of being unheard and unseen is not being noticed--which in my gut says I'm reading the whole sentence, not getting tunnel vision on what's listed after the cause.

CAUSE (You avoid notice,) --> EFFECT (unheard and hidden from view.)

Page 188 states clearing that I get Combat Advantage from stealth when the target isn't aware of me.  (I _interpret_ that to mean the reason they printed that blurb about Combat Advantage there is because that is how they intended for Stealth to grant combat advantage.)

But one more time--I can _understand_ and I can't _disprove_ the logic that you're using.  (Nor do I desire to.)

That's how I reached my decision about Stealth, combined with the opinions of my table, on how it should work.  I promise you that you can suggest I'm refusing to disprove your logic all you like (and you're correct, though I stated I couldn't more times than I should need to), but you are as important as fly on my window compared to the players at my table.

So the way I want to run things is carved in stone and carried down from the mountain weeks ago--unless I get an email from Mearls today, quoting this post right here, that says, "Sorry J, but camp #1 is correct, and we accidentally messed up the tactics for every encounter we've published."

The CSRs can say whatever they like (which is obvious with the glaring contradictions they have with themselves), and they are just giving us their interpretations of the rules, too.

The moment I read that Combat Advantage indicates you only look at Stealth rules when determining if the target is aware of you, I'm done.  If I decided that it did apply, then I would start leaning towards Combat Advantage with just Cover/Concealment = Yes, but I didn't cross that first hurdle.

I feel better about my choice (on a personal level, not because it proves you wrong) because after reading Kobold Hall, Keep on the Shadowfell, Heathen, and Sleeping in the Tomb of Dreams now, they seem to support my ideas of Stealth & Combat Advantage and how they work.


----------



## Tonester (Jul 5, 2008)

Still?

Xorn:
Pg. 188: "Success: You avoid notice, *unheard and hidden from view.*"

Emphasis mine.  Why do you always use the "avoid notice" and then conveniently leave the rest off?

The idea of stealth is NOT this complicated, man.  In order to create a Stealth Check, you need Cover or Concealment.  Once stealthed, a player is unnoticed, unheard, and unseen (i.e. the definition of stealth).  Period.

Rogues are meant to have Combat Advantage quite frequently.  Rangers and Warlocks quite a bit as well.  I.E. Strikers.  Many of the rules, mechanics, balance, etc is centered around this philosophy.  Why do people insist on making it harder than it is to accept this?

*edit*
Just read some of your other posts.  Let me try to explain it this way:

Once a player has:
A) Distracted an enemy
or
B) Has concealment against an enemy
or
C) Has cover against an enemy

THEN that player is NOT in plain site of the enemy.  Being a stealthy character, this is all the opening they need in order to do SOMETHING (who cares what... that is fluff) that makes the enemy completely unaware of the character.... unnoticed, unheard, and unseen.

There is low light (concealment).  A monster can kind of make out the silhouette of a player.  The player makes a stealth check and all of a sudden, the monster no longer sees the silhouette.... not sure if they ever saw them to begin with or not... not sure if it was their imagination or not... not sure if it was shadows, torch flickers or what.  Who cares?  Its a mechanic.

A player is ducked behind a low wall (cover).  They make a stealth check.... maybe they leave a cap resting on the wall which makes the monster think they are still there while their stealth check movement allows them to scurry off to another wall.  Since this new wall also provides cover, they are still stealthed at the beginning of their next turn.  Again... a mechanic... who cares?  That monster no longer knows where the player is... unnoticed, unheard, and unseen.

A player is engaging a monster in combat (plain sight).  The player performs a Distract/Bluff check..... the player gets a scared look on its face and looks up like a dragon is approaching the enemy from the rear.  The enemy turns around and as doing so, the player performs a stealth check and scurries off.  The monster turns around and doesn't see, hear, or know where the player is any longer.... unnoticed, unheard, AND unseen.  If the player doesn't scurry off to a place which has cover or concealment, then they will be UNSTEALTHED at the beginning of their turn.

It is all 3.  Unnoticed.  Unheard.  Unseen.  It doesn't matter if they noticed them before or not.  When a stealth checks passes, they no longer notice them.  They no longer see them.  They no longer hear them.  Why is this so hard to grasp?  It is a mechanic.

Don't try to fight the system so much man   Its just a mechanic.  I agree that WoTC could clarify a couple of things (like the difference between hiding, moving, etc).  But just remember that it is supposed to happen pretty frequently.

In fact, the only stealth house rule I like actually HELPS stealth classes.  Having a penalty for moving more than 2 squares is dumb, imo, when you are a class that can WALK 7 or 8 squares.  Moving more than half your walk speed (rounded down) incurs the stealth penalty.  If you have 6 or 7 speed, you can move 3 stealthed without penalty.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 5, 2008)

Tonester said:


> In order to create a Stealth Check, you need Cover or Concealment...




*and* your DM to deem the given situation appropriate.



Tonester said:


> Rogues are meant to have Combat Advantage quite frequently.




There are 13 other ways to get CA, and these questions about Stealth.

1. Do you want to give stealthers CA. Or do you want to give them remarkable defensive advantages _and _CA?

2. If you want to give them CA, what's wrong with the 13 other ways of getting it. *Nice* encounters require strategy and teamwork. 'Sneak attack' 'use Stealth' 'Sneak attack' 'use Stealth' isn't that.

3. If Stealth is enough for continuous CA, why do Rogues need all those powers that give them CA?

4. If a Stealth check should always be granted, ignoring PHB178 RAW, why do Rogues need powers that explicitly grant checks? For that matter, why have rules for Diversions, Distractions, and Total Concealment or Superior Cover? Just assume all player and creatures Skill Focus Stealth. (Exaggerating to make a point.)

5. How many times do you want to roll per round for stealth? One Rogue, once enemies are alert, triggers as many as (3*enemies)+1 checks every turn. At that rate, wouldn't it be more fun to just give the Rogue continuous CA?

6. Since Stealth is cost free, why shouldn't _all_ players and enemies use it whenever they qualify, every round?

-vk


----------



## Xorn (Jul 5, 2008)

Tonester said:


> Still?
> 
> Xorn:
> Pg. 188: "Success: You avoid notice, *unheard and hidden from view.*"
> ...




I stopped reading here; I want to see what it's like when you're reading my posts, because you apparently didn't read what I just wrote--seeing as I specifically made this cool little Cause > Effect statement, which _included_ the unheard and hidden from view, and even pointed out that I _understand_ how you're reading it.  (That's the _opposite_ of "leaving the rest off", as a sidebar.)

It's pretty apparent to me that you haven't read the tactics I've mentioned repeatedly.  If you don't want to read the tactics in every piece of published material there is and see that _not one time_ is there mention of using Stealth the way you're suggesting, but _repeated_ examples of using it the way I have suggested, then there's not much to discuss, because _that's my disconnect with your interpretation._

I've given very specific examples, too.  In the Heathen adventure (I'm not giving complete details so as to not spoil the encounter for people that don't want to go read it), but how about I say, "Read page 38 of Dungeon 155" and explain to me--why does that creature, with +14 Stealth, not even SUGGEST using Stealth to become unseen, rather than get into Total Concealment?

Now read page 47: You are specifically instructed that the bugbear will use stealth to hide in the smoke, gaining combat advantage--but then absolutely no mention of using stealth thereafter to regain combat advantage without first getting out of sight--why is that?

I've been looking--reading everything I can find on the matter--and I haven't found _one single example_ where a person that has been spotted uses stealth to regain combat advantage.  But I _have_ found _multiple_ examples of using Stealth exactly as I'm using it.

Why is that, do you think?

Could it be just coincidence?  Sure--but every single tactics section I read makes that possibility feel more and more remote.  It seems much more likely to me that Stealth doesn't grant Combat Advantage the way you think it does.  But I can't prove that for sure--I can just play the way I see it, supported by a -ton of research on the matter.

I would _love_ to find anything, anywhere, in the published tactics that mentions just _one time_ using stealth the way you indicate.  But I haven't, and I don't think it's out there.  Plenty of examples for my way though, which is why I'm happy.  My interpretation seems to match what was intended, as I encounter it.


----------



## AngelBob (Jul 5, 2008)

Really, having looked at a the BIG PICTURE of DnD, meaning comparisons to other ways of obtaining CA, published encounters, other powers and abilities from monsters and classes, I am really going with Xorn here.

We can JUST focus in on the rules that concern stealth and concealment/cover, and we can quibble about their combat usage for ever. We can declare how OBVIOUS it is that it works THIS way. But look, OBVIOUSLY it's NOT OBVIOUS, else why would it be such a big topic?

The problem to me, looks like the Stealth rules really don't speak overly much about the difference in how it works "In Combat" to how it works out of it. The rules are PERFECT for how it works out of it, they even make sense for once you are in it, it's the regaining it that seems janky as all heck.

I'm playing it the way Xorn has explained. The abilities and powers support it, the adventures as written support it, other skill usages and the gut feeling of DnD 4th support it. It's only an interpretation of those specific rules that do not. Take a step back, see DnD 4th as a WHOLE, and maybe you'll see what we do.

If you don't, no big, play it your way! Just don't be mad at me for playing it mine.


----------



## Klaumbaz (Jul 5, 2008)

This thread is devolving into just attacking each other now.

Xorn, The Readbeard, Vonklaude, and others just need to agree to disagree on this untill something VERY official appears.

Someone roll a die, odds you win, even they win, put it aside and wait for an official ruling.


----------



## Machus (Jul 5, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> *I have not been proposing* by recording a ruling of *'needing total concealment'*.



It is without a doubt, one of your own pre-conditions.  It's apparently Xorns only pre-condition.  Both are house rules.  I'm concerned this being in the 4e rules forum, people will mistakenly believe this is a valid interpretation of the rules.  



> *in order to regain hiding you have to do something other than* just [get cover or concealment].




Yes, that's your rule, that is not in the PHB for 4e.
Gaining cover or concealment is the RAW requirement for making a stealth check.  As GM, you deny that check on the basis of...your new rule.  The GM can be consulted, yes, but if they use a house rule as the basis for the denial, it's still a house rule. A better mechanic is to simply give the player a penalty to stealth checks, when you think it will be harder, as the GM, based on the situation (not on a house rule).  For instance, if glass is covering the floor, sure it may be harder to make a stealth check.  But that's GM discretion, it's not written.  Maybe he has to make an acrobatics roll (to avoid the glass), while also makeing a stealth check.  Denying it outright?  Not good.



> That something is to get into a new position unobserved or find a way to make them think you aren't still where you were.



Precisely.  Now read your words.  "get into a new position unobserved".  Unobserved means you are not seen/heard/noticed.  So in effect you are setting the requirement that in order to make this next stealth check, the players must ALREADY be unobserved!

You are requiring them to be not-noticed, to obtain via stealth the status of not-noticed.

Using your example, let's assume the rogue is moving unnoticed to some concealement.  Wait, why bother?  He is already unnoticed by your admission.  He already will then have total concealment and CA if he attacks.



> I think this is the house rule you are objecting to. I've also made it clear that a Bluff, or a distraction, would work equally well,



You've only made it clear that there are now three pre-conditions in your house rule:
Player must move to concealment or cover, unobserved OR, in conjunction with a bluff check, OR, after a good distraction.

I don't disagree that this may work for you.  If a rogue keeps hiding in the same spot over and over, they may not be quite so surprised when he jumps out for the third time right?  But if they are engaged in comabt with other party members, they are probably distracted already....



> and elsewhere I posted the example you give using Teleport. Teleport can get you to a position literally unobserved, such as your example of a position behind your enemies, since you do not pass through the intervening squares.




But nothing has changed to the opponnents when he teleported, which is why I used that example.

If the rogue was ALREADY unseen, the opponents COULD NOT be aware of whether or not he teleported.  And the fact that he did teleport is then irrelevant.  In RAW it makes no difference.



> Why would you need Shadow Stride at all, if you can simply move from one hidden position, across clear enemy lines of sight, and into any cover and regain stealth?




SS lets you move while still hidden, without concealment/cover.
This has the following benefits:
1. You will not trigger opportunity attacks as you move past opponents.
2. Your opponents have no in-game knowledge to help drive their search for you.  In other words, they are still presuming you may be near your original hiding spot.
Think of sneaking past guards in a lit portion of a hallway.  You can do this with SS.  You cannot do this otherwise, you are auto-seen.

I think a GM giving penalty to re-hiding in the same spot, in the middle of combat, is probably healthy for everyone, I will probably adopt something similar based on these discussions.  But that's dependant on the environment.  Flat out denying it is not as healthy IMO.  But either way both are GM rulings outside of the 4e rules.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 6, 2008)

the_redbeard said:


> Page 188.  Success:  you avoid notice, *UNHEARD* and hidden from view.




I don't dispute the sound part, I dispute the sneaky = sound part.  The term we are looking for is sneaky, not unheard.



> Also in the fluff description of the skill:
> "slink past guards, slip away without being noticed and sneak up on people without being seen or *heard*."




Well sure, if the original intent of the skill were to have two aspects, sneaky and hidden, then it makes sense the fluff might mention it in some manner.  What I am looking for is an actual rules definition of sneaky.  CustServe essentially says "it's a typo", but I am not convinced that's the right answer as opposed to just an easy answer until the original writer gets involved.


----------



## Tonester (Jul 6, 2008)

Xorn said:
			
		

> I stopped reading here; I want to see what it's like when you're reading my posts, because you apparently didn't read what I just wrote--seeing as I specifically made this cool little Cause > Effect statement, which _included_ the unheard and hidden from view




Fortunately, I read all of your posts and if you had provided the same courtesy to me, you would have seen that I actually ended up addressing exactly what you claim I didn't address - it was just down a bit further since I wrote the top half prior to reading all of your stuff and then edited/added the bottom after giving you the benefit of the doubt and re-reading your latest posts.



vonklaude said:


> *and* your DM to deem the given situation appropriate.




That would be a house rule in my eyes since Concealment OR Cover OR Unaware = "appropriate situation" according to the PHB.  The great thing about this game, however, is that you CAN change it however you like.  Like I've said before, if your system works for you and your players are happy with it... awesome.  Some of us are more interested in figuring out what was intended so we debate based on things as they are written... not interpreted.



vonklaude said:


> 1. Do you want to give stealthers CA. Or do you want to give them remarkable defensive advantages _and _CA?



Not sure what you mean by this.  CA has nothing to do with defense.  If you have CA against an opponent, you get +2 to hit and anything else related to your class skills and having CA.  Once you attack, you break stealth, and thus, have no defensive bonuses from it.  However, if you started your turn behind cover, you could attack, and then try to restealth behind the cover.  If you succeed, then yes, you would have defensive bonuses from stealthing in addition to the cover against any enemies who failed their passive checks.  A monster can, on its turn, actively try to perceive you.  Depending on how well/poorly it succeeds/fails the active check, it can still attack you (or a square as a guess) with other penalties or bonuses accordingly.



vonklaude said:


> 2. If you want to give them CA, what's wrong with the 13 other ways of getting it. *Nice* encounters require strategy and teamwork. 'Sneak attack' 'use Stealth' 'Sneak attack' 'use Stealth' isn't that.



The only way a rogue can stealth, sneak attack, stealth, sneak attack, etc is if A) the rogue is doing so from behind cover or within constant concealment or B) the rogue spends an action point.  Again, there is nothing wrong with this - it is how the class (along with the ranger and even the warlock) were designed.  The rules are very clear with regards to cover, concealment, and stealth, imo.



vonklaude said:


> 3. If Stealth is enough for continuous CA, why do Rogues need all those powers that give them CA?



It isn't for constant CA, and I don't believe anyone here has made any claims close to that.  A melee rogue, at best, could use stealth every other round to gain CA unless it spends an AP... and even that is a once per encounter shot.  However, as previously stated, it is possible to do CA nearly every round if the rogue is behind cover or within concealment.  In these instances, a monster trying to out-range the rogue (or ranger or constantly moving warlock) is probably playing very stupidly since it would most likely have to attack the square the monster THINKS the rogue/ranger/warlock is in (at a huge penalty) or try to advance to a better position that doesn't afford the rogue/ranger/warlock cover or concealment.  Again - there is nothing wrong with this imo.



vonklaude said:


> 4. If a Stealth check should always be granted, ignoring PHB178 RAW, why do Rogues need powers that explicitly grant checks? For that matter, why have rules for Diversions, Distractions, and Total Concealment or Superior Cover? Just assume all player and creatures Skill Focus Stealth. (Exaggerating to make a point.)



Nothing in the rules say a Stealth check should always be granted.  Its only granted if A) The player has cover or B) The player has concealment or C) The monster is distracted (which can only be done one way that I'm aware of in combat) or D) The monster is already unaware of the player.  All of those don't have to hold true.... only 1 of them.  And you are correct, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a player who meets any of those conditions to at least try a stealth check.  As a DM, I probably wouldn't allow it unless the player was trained in Stealth because it isn't very RP'ish, but that is just me.  The rules don't state otherwise.



vonklaude said:


> 5. How many times do you want to roll per round for stealth? One Rogue, once enemies are alert, triggers as many as (3*enemies)+1 checks every turn. At that rate, wouldn't it be more fun to just give the Rogue continuous CA?



If a character wants to try and stealth on their turn, its 1 roll on their turn.  This roll is compared immediately against the BEST passive perception of whatever monster/check is applicable.  If that check succeeds, then they are stealthed until a monster, on its turn, decides to actively seek out the rogue.  If it fails, then by communication, then all monsters are aware.  And unless you have every monster wanting to interact with the stealther on a monster's given turn, it isn't that many active perception checks either (maybe 1 or 2 at most per round for monsters).



vonklaude said:


> 6. Since Stealth is cost free, why shouldn't _all_ players and enemies use it whenever they qualify, every round?



If you are trained in stealth, have a high dex, wear light armor, etc (i.e. can probably stealth pretty well), then you SHOULD be doing this whenever possible - it is what your class was meant to do.  That being said - If you are a plate-wearing Dwarf Paladin untrained in stealth and with an 8 dex, then you might piss your groupmates off if you try to stealth every time you duck behind a wall.  But for Warlocks, Rogues, and Rangers.... I expect them to make Stealth checks nearly every round and see nothing wrong with it at all - it is a part of their class design.


----------



## Badapple (Jul 6, 2008)

If this was just about a way to have a rogue get sneak attacks every round, then I wouldn't really care.  But everything that applies to the rogue applies to every other character and monster involved in the game.  For people that have played and say it isn't a problem I think it's because they are blessed with players that don't try to cheese every last advantage.  Unfortunately my players will try to milk everything they possibly can.

In my group of seven players we have a rogue with very high stealth, and a paladin with very low stealth.  The rogue will probably attempt stealth every round, the paladin never.  But not everything is so clear cut.  We also have a wizard, cleric, fighter, and warlord and one tbd.  All of these characters have anywhere from +0 to +2 dex and at most -1 for their armor.  Basically making it a straight up d20 roll for them to see if they can beat a 12 or so passive perception for most of their typical foes.

Let's say the wizard is in a square providing cover or concealment (not a bad assumption, since he probably starts out in the back behind the other characters).  What's to stop him from taking a minor action on his turn to steath, whether successful or not the standard action is to cast a spell, then the move action is to attempt stealth again?  The answer is nothing.  He SHOULD be doing this.  Same with everyone else.  Except now he's making 2 extra dice rolls per turn.

So should the cleric before and after using his ranged spells.  The warlord can wind up shouting out a commander's strike as his standard, then stealthing.  Which is weird, shouting out orders then hiding but whatever it's in the rules and it's a +2 attack bonus and a +5 defense bonus (at least).  Even if he needs to roll high on the die he might as well go for it, there is no penalty for trying.  (other than extra time taken).

With a fighter and paladin up front, the other 5 characters don't even have to find a pillar they can just stealth from behind the two frontliners and if they roll a 14 on the 20 sided die then they are more than likely able to get effectively +7?!?! to their defenses (+2 cover +5 being unseen) if they are even targetted.

I see a really ridiculous scenario where the fighter and paladin are up front and the rest of the party of 5 players are in single file behind, all using each other to stealth and gain CA on their turn.  The monster fighting the paladin is like "wtf" as the paladin directly in front of him seemingly sprouts 5 additional pairs of shiva arms all flinging ranged attacks at his vital spots.

These rolls add up.  These +2s add up.  And there's no reason why the monsters shouldn't be doing the same.  (except as Xorn has excellently pointed out the tactics section of the monster manual and the published adventures don't include this)  More dice rolling.  More mods.

So, yeah, my main problem with stealth is that it's a lot of extra dice rolling slowing everything down.  And pretty huge defensive bonuses and potential record keeping / metagame concerns.

I'm considering something along the lines of going with the leave line of sight and combat for one round to stealth, then come back and get CA next round interpretation of stealth, but then figuring out a way to give rogues some more SA opportunities.  Perhaps allowing rogues to use bluff/feint as a move action instead of a standard action once per encounter?


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 6, 2008)

There are only 2 classes trained in stealth: ranger and rogue, so they are the only ones likely to try it (as happened in your game).  It doesn't give a defense bonus that I can recall, just combat advantage (aside from the cover or concealment itself, which is there regardless of stealth).  And it's really only helpful from range, and few characters are range (and even fewer will try to attack from range and under cover or concealment, since MOST of the time the same cover/concealment you are using will also give the same cover/concealment to your foe, negating your combat advantage).  And it's rolled against passive perception.  So I really don't see your worries based in well founded concerns.

Have people really not tried this out much or have folks forgotten just how often your own cover/concealment becomes your foes cover/concealment?


----------



## Tonester (Jul 6, 2008)

*To Sum It All Up*

As sad as it may sound, I've actually gone through and read every page and every post.  I will try to do my best to give an example of how *I* interpret the rules as written.

1) Cover - Allies and Enemies.  Your own allies grant you cover from enemies if your allies are between you and enemies and the enemy is attacking with a ranged attack.  If there are enemies between you and your intended target, then that target also has cover from you if you attack it with a ranged weapon.  Melee attacks are not affected by allies/creatures which means weapons with reach 2 can effectively attack through other enemies to your intended target and without cover.  However, terrain still grants cover from melee AND ranged attacks if applicable.  The text described in the PHB with regards to "your allies never grant cover to enemies" means that doing ranged attacks through your allies to enemies is not considered cover for your enemies and vice versa.


2) Perception Checks - Standard Action vs Minor Action.  Standard Action checks are for when you are checking for ANYTHING hidden or out of the ordinary.  Minor Perception Checks are when you are trying to spot someone who has Stealthed so as to make an attack against them or against a square you think they are in.  Looking for traps, hidden treasure, a secret lever,etc during combat?  Standard Action.  Looking for signs of that Warlock that disappeared moments ago in a shadowy mist?  Minor Action.


3) Perception Checks - Active vs Passive for Stealth.  When a player (or a monster) meets the conditions required to do something stealthily and then actually performs some action stealthily on THEIR turn, the "opposed check" for potential observers is a PASSIVE PERCEPTION CHECK for all applicable observers.  And since encounters usually consist of 2-4 different "groups" of monsters, there are only 2-4 different passive numbers to check against.

It is up to DMs to determine how this works for monsters and communication, players and communication, etc.  I.E. If 1 or more observers have clear line of site to the stealther (no concealment or cover against these particular observers), and if these observers have some means of warning, communicating, etc effectively to other observers.  What baffles me is why would people think it is any different?

Imagine a DM trying to actually have a group of lurkers sneak up on players.  "Hey, I need each of you to roll an active perception check" as the DM rolls a dice.  Obviously, the DM is rolling a Stealth vs Perception check and now its ruined.  DMs should have the Defenses, Speed, Passive Insight/Perception Checks, etc of each player already for these exact reasons.  The DM should have the highest passive Insight/Perception of the party at least.


4) Conditions Required for Stealth Checks.  In order for a player to perform an action with a stealth check attached to it, the players has to meet ONE or more of the following conditions:

A) Have cover (normal or superior) against potential observers
B) Have concealment (normal or superior) against potential observers
C) Have potential observers either distracted (out of combat), distracted via Bluff check (in combat) or unaware of you (out of combat, dazed, unconcious, blind, you are invisible, etc)
D) Must not be carrying any light source which is activated (unless you are invisible magically in which case light source does not matter, or the observers are blind, dazed, etc... see unaware above)


5) Breaking Stealth.  The following conditions break stealth:

A) After an attack, you are unstealthed.
B) After speaking, you are unstealthed.
C) After activating a lightsource, you are unstealthed.
D) After ending your turn without cover or concealment to observers, you are unstealthed to at least those observers (maybe more depending on DM and rules about communication... see above)
E) WHILE performing any action with a failed stealth check, you are unstealthed DURING the failed action as well as AFTER
F) If you happen to have whatever requirement (which granted you stealth originally) taken away from you during someone else's turn, you are then unstealthed.  I.E.  You had cover behind an ally on your turn and successfully stealthed at the end of your turn so you are "hidden" to observers.  And then, your ally moves on their turn.  You lost your cover/concealment so now you are unstealthed.  I.E. You had concealment due to low light conditions and successfully stealthed at the end of your turn.  On an enemy kobold's turn, they throw a lighted torch into a corner near you... you are unstealthed. *NOTE* This is when the Rogue's At-Will Utility Power Chameleon would most likely apply.... for circumstances where your previous stealthable condition is removed and it is no longer your turn.


6) Stealth During Combat - What The Eff?  Following the rules above, I'll simply go through some examples and how I would handle them... starting with the first one provided by someone concerning their party, 2 kobolds, him running behind a corner, and then flinging a dagger/shuriken.

A) Party enters a room and there are 2 kobolds standing there staring them in the face.  If the Rogue has allies providing cover to the 2 kobolds, the Rogue could make a stealth check as part of a ranged attack.  If it succeeds, the rogue would make that attack with Combat Advantage.  If the Rogue is in the front and/or does not have cover from allies, corners, or anything else, that rogue would have to move to a corner that offers cover.  No stealth check would apply to the move action since the Rogue doesn't meet the requirements for a stealth check.  Once at the corner, the Rogue has cover from the kobolds.  At this point, the Rogue could make a stealth-checked attack against the kobolds with a ranged weapon to see if it grants CA or not.  Before people get into an uproar, there IS pro-fluff that supports this just as much as there is con-fluff that shoots it down.  I.E.  The kobolds just see a halfling running for cover.  Once around the corner, it is unclear to them what the halfling's intentions were.  And, besides that, they have 5 other party members to worry about and scan in the span of 4-6 seconds (1 round).  So, they either focus ALL of their attention on a halfling which poses no apparent threat and grant EVERYONE ELSE combat advantage OR the give all threats equal observation in the span of 4-6 seconds (their turn for the round) which is all a halfling rogue needs to A) pass a stealth check and happen to pop out and hit a kobold when it wasn't looking that way for extra damage or B) fail a stealth check and happen to pop out and hit a kobold when the kobold was happening to look that way and thus, no extra damage.  Either way, as soon as the attack happens, the rogue is no longer stealthed since the kobolds now know the rogue is NOT running away, but instead, is actually hiding back there to throw dangerous objects at them.

B) Similar scenario but instead of the Rogue running to cover and THEN attacking, we'll start the Rogue's turn off with them already being behind cover.  Just as before, the Rogue can attack with a stealth check to see if the attack is with CA or not.  As soon as the rogue attacks, however, they are no longer stealthed.  Now?  RAW: They must perform some other action and tack on a stealth check to it to end their turn stealthed.... which means they could perform a move action which involves a movement 1 square away and then 1 square back.  They could perform a minor action to go prone where they are and see if it is done stealthily.  Either way, this is how I would run it.  Why?  Because it allows for counter strategies (like triggers on player movement) and it also causes the player to burn actions (if they go prone, they must spend a movement action standing up before they can attack ranged) and other things DMs might come up with.  What is NOT acceptable is "I will sheathe my weapon stealthily." and now the player is stealthed.  No.  You may have put your weapon away without the kobolds noticing, but you didn't get out of site, duck behind cover, move and make them question where the last place they saw you is, etc.

C) Similar situation, but now carried on AFTER the player's turn.  Quick Backstory: Player started turn behind cover.  Player successfully attacked stealthily and hit a kobold with a dagger and combat advantage.  The player then successfully moved 1 square that way and then 1 square back this way with a stealth check and ended right back behind the same cover and ended his/her turn with cover and successfully stealthed.

Now, the DM goes through each monster's turn.  Most of them are tied up with fighters, warlords, and clerics nearer to the front lines.  However, there is that one kobold that keeps getting hit by daggers.  THIS KOBOLD MAKES AN ACTIVE PERCEPTION CHECK AGAINST THE ROGUE'S LAST STEALTH CHECK.  He THINKS (the perception check may grant directions, clues, or even the precise square) the rogue is behind a set of crates and so the kobold attacks a square behind a set of crates with a crossbow at -7 (-5 for total concealment since the rogue successfully stealthed and the kobold can't actually see the rogue, but only THINKS he is there and -2 for still being behind cover... assuming the kobold picked the correct square).  Now, lets assume a wizard kobold attacks a square between 2 sets of crates with a ranged burst fire spell.  This attack suffers no penalties to hit (assuming its burst actually is able to hit the square that the player is actually in and that there is no other cover between the player and the burst area).

Pro-Fluff suggests, "The Rogue successfully hit the kobold with a dagger while the Kobold wasn't looking and then successful ducked back down before the Kobold could figure out it was even a dagger that hit him at all, let alone where it came from" or "The rogue hit the kobold with a dagger successfully, the kobold quickly glances over at the rogue who then FEINTS like they are running to another set of crates and the kobold quickly looks back at the fighter who is trying to chop off his head.... secure in knowing where that rogue will be next time... but not realizing that he failed his perception check and the rogue actually didn't move at all."


7) Warlocks, Shadow Walk, and Stealth:  Yes - Warlocks are supposed to stealth.  Their "natural race" has a +2 to Stealth AND Bluff.  They have powers which directly reference Stealth.  They have a passive skill which keeps them in perpetual concealment every time they move 3 or more squares.

How does it work?  For my people, I let Warlocks just start all encounters as if they walked 3 squares to start the encounter.  I.E. They start out with concealment and a +2 bonus to their defenses accordingly.  Shadow Walk grants concealment until the END of your next turn.  So, on a Warlock's first turn during combat, they can perform a move action and do so with a Stealth Check.  If they move 2 squares or less, they suffer no penalty to the stealth check but they DO NOT regain Shadow Walk for the remainder of the round and into their next turn.  If they move 3 squares or more, they incur a -5 penalty to the stealth check (unless they have the feat or item or power which ables them to do so without a penalty) but they do regain Shadow Walk until the end of their next turn which also means they keep their concealment (and their stealth if they passed the check) until the end of their next turn.

What does all of this mean?  It means if a Warlock is constantly moving/teleporting, they can pretty much keep concealment up all the time.  If they end their turn on a stealth-checked movement of 3 squares or more, they are stealthed/concealed until the end of their next turn or until they perform any of the actions which cause them to unstealth or until someone else happens to do something which takes away their concealment when it isn't the warlock's turn.  This means they too can perform many of their attacks with Combat Advantage.

In fact, I strongly suggest Warlocks "set up" their encounter or daily powers this way to give themselves the best chance of not wasting them on a horrible miss.... especially if you don't have a magically enhanced implement.  Much the same way that Rangers or Rogues should set up their daily's or encounters... although elves tend to be Rangers and Rogues more often than Warlocks so Elven Accuracy helps them in this regard.  I digress...

Yes, they were meant to be played this way.


8) Ranger vs. Melee Rogue vs. Warlock vs. Ranged Rogue vs Etc.  Staying primarily stealthed at range does help YOU.  It helps you hit and it also helps you get hit less.  However, being melee has its advantages as well... especially to a GROUP.

It offers flanking advantages to your teammates (combat advantage, +hit, etc).  It lets healers get more effeciency out of their burst heals.  It gives Warlords more "pieces" to work with for their mini-chess games and powers.  It gives enemies less room to shift/work with in terms of getting to your squishies.

These are striker classes and they are meant to hit often.... i.e. have combat advantage often.  Fighters have reliable powers to help curb not getting CA quite as often (although having melee strikers HELPS!).  Warlocks, Rangers, and Rogues can stealth, gain concealment/cover, and flank for combat advantage.... not to mention powers that grant it.  And then you have the Wizard with its many anti-stealth skills, multiple attack roll skills, miss effects, sustains, conjurations to create even more concealment (CA) for teammates, etc.  And then you have your Paladins, Clerics, and Warlords who are kind of sol and don't get CA as often OR have reliable powers... but they aren't meant to dish out as much raw damage as a striker, wizard, or fighter.

If I left anything out... or if there is another scenario which isn't covered, please say something.

Do I think the book could have done a better job?  Definitely.  Do I think it works and makes sense as written once you understand it?  Definitely.  If WoTC ends up errata'ing it to say something different.... I'll start using it that way... but this is how _*I *_see it working and it:

A) Doesn't require hardly any extra dice rolls at all
B) Is pretty simple once you understand it
C) Does have fluff wich does support the mechanics
D) Lets rogues, rangers, and warlocks feel like true strikers
E) Doesn't unbalance anything as far as I can tell or as far as CSR has communicated as well

Cheers and sorry if my tone with earlier posts upset anyone.


*EDIT* Forgot a scenario
9)  Remaining Stealthed - Perform ALL actions with Stealth Checks.  Your rogue has been in melee and took quite a beating the last couple of rounds.  Your fighter has marked it, but it smells blood and wants to finish you off.  You are almost dead.  In a last ditch effort, you distract/bluff the creature long enough to try and sneak off.

A) You successfully pass your Distract/Bluff Check.
B) This allows you to move OR attack with a stealth check tacked onto it.  If you attack with a successful stealth check, you'll have CA.  If you move with a successful stealth check, you can actually WALK/MOVE away from the monster and not provoke an opportunity attack (but only from the distracted/bluffed monster... any other adjacent baddies would get an OA).  For me, the player must specify BEFORE rolling if they will shift or move... and then roll to find out if it works.  At any rate, you successfully pass the check, and luckily, there is a stone column close enough to walk behind (grants cover).  At the end of your turn, you decide to drink a Potion of Healing as a minor action.  THIS MUST ALSO BE DONE WITH A *NEW* STEALTCH CHECK!  Maybe the potion makes a big *poink* sound as you take the cork out.  Maybe you drop it and make some noise.  Who knows.  But, if you want to do it without drawing attention to yourself or giving away your new location (behind the column), you need to drink the potion with a successful stealth check.  Assuming it succeeds, you are now successfully stealthed behind a column which grants cover, and thus, grants stealth (unless one of the many things listed earlier cancels it).
C) Lets assume there was no stone column close enough to reach with your walk speed.  You could try running but you would incur a -10 penalty.  That is too risky and you don't want to risk the OA from the monster you bluffed so you decide to walk as far as you can.  You successfully walk your movement speed stealthed and you successfully drank your potion stealthily as well, but you didn't make it behind cover or into low light (for concealment) and its the end of your turn.  You are no longer stealthed.  All monsters in combat will now be aware of you... including the one you bluffed/distracted if it hasn't had its turn yet.


----------



## Tonester (Jul 6, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> There are only 2 classes trained in stealth: ranger and rogue, so they are the only ones likely to try it (as happened in your game)




My warlock's level 1 feat was Train Skill: Stealth.



Mistwell said:


> It doesn't give a defense bonus that I can recall, just combat advantage (aside from the cover or concealment itself, which is there regardless of stealth).




Once you successfully stealth, no observers can tell where you are.  On their turn, they can spend a minor action to try and check/guess where you are, but any attacks will be -5 for total concealment and maybe -2 for cover (if applicable) depending on their opposed check during their turn.



Mistwell said:


> And it's really only helpful from range, and few characters are range




Agreed.

I just wanted to re-iterate one thing about 4e and Stealth and Combat Advantage.  This is not 3x.  Stealth in 4e is not the same thing.  1 round of combat is 4-6 seconds.  In those 4-6 seconds, there is TONS of stuff going on.  Stealth is just as much about disappearing behind a rock stealthily as it is about popping up from behind that rock stealthily and hitting you while you weren't looking.... either because they were quick and gave no warning or because when they disappeared behind the rock, you actually thought they scurried off somewhere else.  Stealth in 4e is NOT about "Hi.... I'm going to sneak up behind the leader before combat actually starts and attempt to assassinate him for 4 pts of damage.... that doesn't kill him.... and then wait for my teammates to spend 2 turns to get to him and flank him so I can do it again... but until then, I'll let the leader kick my ass some more.  Do we have a cleric?  Oh yeah, they can't heal from range. *sad face*"


----------



## Xorn (Jul 6, 2008)

Klaumbaz said:


> This thread is devolving into just attacking each other now.
> 
> Xorn, The Readbeard, Vonklaude, and others just need to agree to disagree on this untill something VERY official appears.
> 
> Someone roll a die, odds you win, even they win, put it aside and wait for an official ruling.




I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just trying to stop debating the rules.  The rules are not up for debate here, as this enormous thread as already shown that we can't clearly interpret the rules as written.

My point since re-entering the thread was it re-iterate that there's basically two interpretations of the rules.  The only option remaining is to look through every example of stealth in combat we can find, and see which interpretation they fit.

I've done that--it's why I'm entrenched in my interpretation.  I really don't care what interpretation others go with--my only aim is to present a clear presentation of the issue, to help people who haven't settled on an interpretation yet.

Even if they decide to go the route of CA from stealth, that's great--I just hope the areas I've suggested people read help with that decision.

They really helped me.  I'm probably going to retire from this thread again, because I don't have anything else to add at this point.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 6, 2008)

Tonester said:


> Once you successfully stealth, no observers can tell where you are.  On their turn, they can spend a minor action to try and check/guess where you are, but any attacks will be -5 for total concealment and maybe -2 for cover (if applicable) depending on their opposed check during their turn.




And here is where I think you've gone very wrong.  It doesn't give you total concealment unless it says it gives you total concealment (which it does not).  You can house rule it to do that, but all you've done is extend hidden to equal total concealment, when the rule never says that is what you should do.  If you have regular cover or concealment, foes have a -2 to their attacks.  But if they have line of sight to you, you don't gain total concealment.


----------



## Tonester (Jul 6, 2008)

Xorn said:


> My point since re-entering the thread was it re-iterate that there's basically two interpretations of the rules.




I don't think there are 2 interpretations of the rules.  I think:
A) The rules are all not in 1 place
B) There are people who are biased and can't get past the old concepts of CA and Stealth (from 3x)



Xorn said:


> The only option remaining is to look through every example of stealth in combat we can find, and see which interpretation they fit.




If you aren't completely burned out on the topic already (seems like you are), I suggest you read my last novel or two and see where you interpret things differently or why you would have an issue with doing it that way and we'll go from there... again, assuming you aren't burned out (I'm close).



Xorn said:


> Even if they decide to go the route of CA from stealth, that's great--I just hope the areas I've suggested people read help with that decision.




After having a few play sessions using rules similar to your interpretation (which is much closer to 3x) and see players grow tiresome of missing on daily's and encounters.... I'm pretty confident that CA is meant to be had pretty effing often.


----------



## Tonester (Jul 6, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> And here is where I think you've gone very wrong.  It doesn't give you total concealment unless it says it gives you total concealment (which it does not).  You can house rule it to do that, but all you've done is extend hidden to equal total concealment, when the rule never says that is what you should do.  If you have regular cover or concealment, foes have a -2 to their attacks.  But if they have line of sight to you, you don't gain total concealment.




Well, I guess we'll just agree to disagree.  I interpret "Success:  You go unnoticed, unseen, and unheard" from your observers as:

A) They can't see you
B) They can't hear you
C) They aren't aware of you or your location

I.E.  You are totally concealed from them and if ANY of them want to, on their own turn, take some action against you, they must first use a minor action to try and ACTIVELY perceive you... or at the very least, gain some clue as to your general direction for a good guess attack.

Concealment, p.281
The target is in a lightly obscured square or in a heavily obscured square but adjacent to you.

Total Concealment, p.281
You can't see the target.
The target is invisible, in a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured square and not adjacent to you.

Personally, I don't know how you can state that Shadow Walk (which grants concealment) doesn't actually make the square the player is in become "lightly obscured or heavily obscured if its adjacent to you" but then say Stealthing Successfully (i.e. becoming unseen, unheard, and unnoticed) isn't the same as "you can't see the target."

I mean... which is it?  Shadow Walk doesn't specifically state it makes a square obscure, but it does say it grants concealment while Stealthing makes you unseen, but not Totally Concealed?  Seems like people get to pick and chose the leaps they make while ignoring the leaps that other people make.

Do you really read the rules that differently?  It seems so clear to me personally.  And, to be honest, if that is the only thing you have a problem with from everything I posted... I can live with that. 

I actually might agree with you that stealthing doesn't grant total concealment.... if it weren't for the fact that you need to maintain cover/concealment in order to remain stealthed.  That is what makes me think it grants total concealment just as much as the definition.

If a player stealths successfully on a move action behind a pillar and there are several pillars, does a monster suffer no penalty other than -2 for cover on an attack roll?  How if it doesn't even know which pillar they are behind?  So, did the player stealth there successfully or not?  Or, did they stealth successfully on the move, but then when they showed up at the pillar, they made a huge sound like, 'Phew! Glad I made it' and gave themself away?  No.  The monster, if played correctly by a DM, would make a semi-random/best guess attempt at which pillar the rogue would be behind based on: Perception check, speed, other pillars' distance from the last area the rogue was spotted, etc.  Then, the role-playing DM who is trying to get into the mind of the monster would pick a square to attack.  But, if there is only 1 pillar, then obviously the guessing games becomes easier.... as it should be.

But... until official word, we'll agree to disagree.  I'm actually anxious to see what they say.


----------



## Badapple (Jul 6, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> And here is where I think you've gone very wrong. It doesn't give you total concealment unless it says it gives you total concealment (which it does not). You can house rule it to do that, but all you've done is extend hidden to equal total concealment, when the rule never says that is what you should do. If you have regular cover or concealment, foes have a -2 to their attacks. But if they have line of sight to you, you don't gain total concealment.




But if you succeed in your stealth check and retain cover or concealment you are totally hidden from your opponent's view.  So either they don't attack you at all (they give up on you because they can't find you) or they play battleship and target a square and attack you at -5.

Either way, it's a considerable defense bonus.

Thus my concern.  It's such a good bonus to have, and there is no cost or penalty involved with trying to get that bonus.  So any character or any monster that ends their turn in cover or concealment and has a minor action left over might as well try a stealth check.  Heck even if they spend their minor action doing something else they might as well try a stealth check because RAW they are allowed to do so.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 6, 2008)

Machus said:


> It is without a doubt, one of your own pre-conditions. It's apparently Xorns only pre-condition. Both are house rules. I'm concerned this being in the 4e rules forum, people will mistakenly believe this is a valid interpretation of the rules.




If you want 'house rules' let's look at the one Redbeard is making that introduces a lot of pain into the debate.

Redbeard proposes that the condtion granted by successful Stealth use connects to the Targeting What You Can't See rules. Now, however _reasonable_ you feel that proposition to be, in rules read as written there is no connect unless the _same words_ appear in both places.

They do not.

You also apply a house rule on Cover or Concealment granting Stealth. Those words are not written in the rules. Cover or Concealment are pre-conditions that let you try to do an action stealthily _provided_ your DM tells you the given situation is _appropriate_. You house rule that Cover or Concealment fulfil the requirement 'appropriate' even after enemies have spotted the Rogue. I see problems with that, so I don't use that house rule.

This is a reasonable forum for DMs to share their ideas on what is _appropriate_ with one another, but we shouldn't try and pin a star on our ideas about that while denigrating anyone elses.

-vk


----------



## Tonester (Jul 6, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> Cover or Concealment are pre-conditions that let you try to do an action stealthily _provided_ your DM tells you the given situation is _appropriate_.




After I went through (a few posts back) and read all of your posts, I think you and I are on the same page.  The DM still has to do a good job of going, "Um.... no, that isn't good enough for a stealth check buddy." but I just want to ensure DMs are doing so within the NEW scope of CA and Stealth and Strikers.... not aren't stuck in some 3x mindset.

However, the concerns about defense (which seems to be your last beef with 4e stealth) is a legitimate one.

But, given as many deaths (well, near deaths) that I've seen... being pushed into slime pits, being glued (immobilized... unable to stealth), etc... I'd say the axe definitely falls both ways in 4e; what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Once DMs realize what players can do, I have a feeling monsters will begin to realize too


----------



## Tonester (Jul 6, 2008)

Badapple said:


> Either way, it's a considerable defense bonus.
> 
> Thus my concern.  It's such a good bonus to have, and there is no cost or penalty involved with trying to get that bonus.  So any character or any monster that ends their turn in cover or concealment and has a minor action left over might as well try a stealth check.  Heck even if they spend their minor action doing something else they might as well try a stealth check because RAW they are allowed to do so.




I can't think of any minor action you could do stealthily that would make observers unaware of your location.  And, like I said earlier, there is nothing inherently wrong with a Dwarf Paladin in Plate and 8 dex trying to stealth every turn from behind a rock..... but it would piss the DM and the players off, I'm sure.

But, how is this any different than players insisting they are "always checking for ambushes" or players always rolling knowledge checks or anything else they aren't good at?  The DM just has to handle it the best they see fit.  Maybe house rule that you have to be trained in stealth to actually make stealth checks for combat purposes.  Then, if a player wants to waste a feat on Stealth, then hey.... they earned the right imo to do the checks.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 6, 2008)

Tonester said:


> Once DMs realize what players can do, I have a feeling monsters will begin to realize too.




You have an evil mind, but I'm with you on that. Did you notice those Kobolds have +9 to +11 Stealth? BTW I found myself making more rolls than you describe for Perception checks.



Tonester said:


> Then, if a player wants to waste a feat on Stealth, then hey.... they earned the right imo to do the checks.




*Warrior of the Wild* FTW  If the 'Redbeard gambit' is supported by Dev, that will be the best feat ever.

If you follow RAW precisely, then you can afford to let Rogues throw in Stealth off a tart's backside in a strong gale. If not, you have to consider the quality of defence they achieve: -5 to be hit, automatically missing if the wrong square is picked, with -10 effective on the Perception check to know the right square.

I throw dice when an enemy has to make a partially-informed guess about something to do with players. Even if I pick only two candidate squares that gives a 50% miss chance, unless I skew it. And this all brings back the consistency issue...

-vk


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 6, 2008)

*the_redbeard:*



> Mechanically it might not make a difference.
> 
> Either way: You don't know where they are.
> 
> ...




The reason I'm having a huge problem with your interpretation of this is twofold:

1. You're using colloquial meanings of your particular interpretation to make a rules argument.  I don't like that.  If the rules refer to other rules, that's a solid argument.  Arguing that Fire damage can make you tired because of some colloquial definition of "fire" is another thing entirely.  That's similar to what you're doing and despite how reasonable it sounds, it's ringing alarm bells all over my DMSense.

2. Concealment is a trivial circumstance.  Dim light allows you to get concealment.  Not darkness, dim light.  By your argument, a Rogue can stand 5 feet in front of someone in dim light and 6 seconds later, they can't see him.  What is that, magic?

THIS is a jedi mind trick - disappearing right in plain sight, right in front of your eyes, in the middle of a combat where your enemy's very eyes are nailed to your butt.

I'm not just not buying that.



> I've always read "hidden from view" as unseen.
> Others read it as ... well, I don't understand how people read "hidden from view" as still being seen, but not perceived. This is not a jedi mind trick skill.




See, the thing here is, I think the skill is more defined by awareness rather than by seeing - a distracted bugbear is _capable_ of seeing you IF he weren't distracted - it's just that he is distracted so you can use your skill to sneak past him unseen (in the noncombat, sneaking past him sort of way).

Once you enter combat, I don't think it's sensible to rule that the skill can be used to essentially turn invisible at will.  The Bluff skill specifies a _combat_ application - it's a use of Bluff that will allow you to use Stealth in combat.

Here's how I'd rule it:

You need _at least_ concealment or cover to use Stealth.  If your enemy is aware of you already, you can't normally use Stealth to make him unaware of you.

Bluff can allow you to use this, but only if you already have cover or concealment, too, or can get to one in the same turn you use Bluff to distract.


I think this is more sensible.  I mean, if I'm reading your interpretation correctly, you can use Bluff to turn invisible in the clear light of day AND THEN attack your opponent without him seeing you, even though you're right in front of him!


----------



## Machus (Jul 6, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> Redbeard proposes that the condtion granted by successful Stealth use connects to the Targeting What You Can't See rules. Now, however _reasonable_ you feel that proposition to be, in rules read as written there is no connect unless the _same words_ appear in both places.
> They do not.




Yet redbeard is correct.

If they succeed at stealth, they are *no longer seen*, heard, or noticed.
The player and DM then simply turn to the "*targeting what you can't see* rules".  CSRs must scratch their head in wonder...why would they not be using "targeting what you can't see", when their opponents cannot be seen??  Seems crystal clear.

It would logically have to be "targeting what you CAN SEE", or stealth would have to say "you are SEEN", for that position to be false.

1. Is the opponent seen?  yes/no.
2. if no, use targeting what you do not see rules.
3. If yes, do not use targeting what you can't see rules.
And GMs have rules for both seen, and unseen.

Your interpretation assumes WOTC has then left us with a logical THIRD category.  Seen, not seen, and hidden (who are unseen!!).
Then it goes on to give is no rules for hidden (who are unseen)


-------
Players already have an advantage when  hiding unobserved.  If an opponent sees you stroll up to a pillar, then you disappear, they can act as though you're there. They can area attack that spot, they can stroll up since you lose cover they can see you, they can simply choose to attck that square and take the -5 (or -7?).  They don't need to beat your check by 10, they may have enough information ALREADY to attack your square (or do the other things mentioned)

Had you gotten to the square unobserved, they'd not know where you were, and to get a better idea they'd have to use the targeting what you can't see rules to locate you.  

So the game as written already benefits those who stealth while unobserved, and penalizes those who hide while being observed.  Entirely consistent.


----------



## Machus (Jul 6, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> THIS is a jedi mind trick - disappearing right in plain sight, right in front of your eyes, in the middle of a combat where your enemy's very eyes are nailed to your butt.




That's just not true.
Dim light is described as almost entirely dark, for starters.
Go into a pitch black room and light a small candle.  Then come back and tell me how well you could see.  Even upgrading to a torch gives them bright light, which negates the concealment.  We're talking about less light than a torch in otherwise pitch blackness.  That's serious shadows and darkenss, makes perfect sense.

And secondly it's a turn based game.  On your turn, they lost sight of you _momentarily. _
On your turn, you can perceive them.  If they move more than 2 squares, it's easier to see them.  If they attack, you see them.
If you suspect they are there in RP terms, you don't even have to roll, just do an area attack, or attack the square you think with a penalty.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 6, 2008)

*Machus:*

No, it doesn't.  I move around in illumination less than a torch a lot.  I've had a series of newborns to take care of.  You cannot "hide" in that especially if we're engaged in combat and we're both trying to kill each other.

I MIGHT fail to notice you if you were being stealthy and NOT moving around much or attacking me but this is not sightless here.  D&D doesn't model nightblindness.  If you can't see because of illumination - you can't see and that's Total Darkness, not Dim light.



> And secondly it's a turn based game. On your turn, they lost sight of you momentarily.
> On your turn, you can perceive them. If they move more than 2 squares, it's easier to see them. If they attack, you see them.
> If you suspect they are there in RP terms, you don't even have to roll, just do an area attack, or attack the square you think with a penalty.




That's no excuse.

If you _cannot be seen_ for the creature's attack, then he's basically NOT seeing you in combat for most intents and purposes.  Yes, he sees you when you attack, and then you magically disappear again - right in front of him.  It's ludicrous.


----------



## Tonester (Jul 6, 2008)

Okay - I was partially correct and partially wrong.  Haha.  This is getting crazy and WoTC needs to put something out asap.

I'll post about it soon.  Watching finals at Wimbledon.


----------



## Machus (Jul 6, 2008)

Do we have a master list of all inclusive relevant questions?
Here is a start if not, refine/correct as needed.

**************
Stealth Questions
**************

======================================
Assumptions:
Player is seen and not under concealment or cover.
Player moves to appropriate cover/concealment, and makes a stealth check.
=====================================================
1. Is the move the action associated with stealth, or is it a free action once they are behind concealment/cover, or do they need to spend a minor action to "hide"?
2. If the player succeeds at stealth, do they in effect have total concealment in terms of what opponents can do against them while they remain "hidden"?

================
Assumptions:
While already hidden:
================
4. Within the same turn, can a rogue attack with their standard action, then re-stealth that same turn as long as they have cover/concealment and make their stealth check? Does it require their move action or minor/free?
5. Do allies count as cover for the purposes of getting cover to make a stealth check from an opponent?
6. Do cover penalties stack with concealment penaliteis (i.e. like -2 for cover and -5 if they are hidden and their square is attacked).
7. Do opponents use the "targeting what you can't see rules" when attempting to attack a player that has used stealth to hide?  Or do they simply detect or not detect them?

==============
Stealth example #1
==============
a1. Players turn, seen and noticed, not concealed or in cover.
b1. Player moves to cover/concealment
c1. Player makes an OPPOSED stealth check vs each applicable opponent's perception roll (move/minor/free, need clarification above)
d1. If success, they are hidden unless they do something to end it.
e1. If they attacked after success at hiding, they would have CA against opponents that did not beat their stealth check. After the attack, they are no longer considered hidden.
f1. If the player is hidden via stealth, opponents can attempt to spot them using a minor action to make a perecption skill check using the players last stealth roll as the DC.
- success means they see them entirely
- failure means they do not. If they guess a square to attack, they have a -5 to hit if it's the correct square, and auto-miss if it's the wrong square. Area attacks affect them normally. Moving to where the player no longer has concealemnt or cover would also automatically reveal them.

===============
Stealth example #2
===============
a2. Players turn, they have concleament or cover and are currently noticed/not-hidden.
b2. Player makes a stealth check with a <minor action> to hide.
c2. If success, the player attacks a nearby opponent with a ranged attack, or an attack that has a move component such as deft strike, nible strike, or charge.
The player has CA on their opponent on this attack.
d2. player is no longer hidden after the attack.
e2. player can use their move action to attempt to hide since they have cover/concealment, and roll oppossed checks as normal.
If success, they are hidden and opponents can no longer see/hear/notice them.
f2. If the player is hidden via stealth, opponents can attempt to spot them using a minor action to make a perecption skill check using the players last stealth roll as the DC.
- success means they see them entirely
- failure means they do not. If they guess a square to attack, they have a -5 to hit if it's the correct square, and auto-miss if it's the wrong square. Area attacks affect them normally. Moving to where the player no longer has concealemnt or cover would also automatically reveal them.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 6, 2008)

Machus said:


> Do we have a master list of all inclusive relevant questions?
> Here is a start if not, refine/correct as needed.



Good work Machus. We need to put something like this to dev.

I have four questions

1. Is Stealth supposed to connect with Targeting What You Can't See taking into account the frankly awesome defence benefit that accrues?

2. Once you attack, are you really supposed to be able to re-hide without breaking LOS or causing a diversion or distraction? I mean, if you are on one angle of a corner, can you attack from there and then re-hide on the same spot?

3. If you are taking cover behind an ally, and the attack misses by the defensive bonus the cover gives you, does the attack hit the 'cover', i.e. your ally?

4. Are Rogues supposed to use anything but Stealth for CA? If not, why is that fun?



Machus said:


> ==============
> Stealth examples...



===============
Stealth example #3
===============
a3. *Surprise turn*, player is standing in dim-light adjacent to an enemy.
b3. Player makes a stealth check using a minor action to hide, and beats enemy's passive Perception.
c3. *New turn,* player attacks the adjacent enemy. The player has CA on this attack.
d3. Player is no longer hidden after the attack.
e3. Player wants to use a minor or move action to attempt to hide without leaving the square they are in.
f3. ...?

-vk


----------



## Tonester (Jul 6, 2008)

Now that Tennis is over, I think I understand how this all works finally.  I was close, but not quite.

If a character has cover or concealment, they can perform some action with a stealth check.  If it succeeds, they perform this action stealthily which means they perform it unseen, unheard, and unnoticed.

HOWEVER, if the character is in just normal concealment or cover, they must MAINTAIN that cover or concealment (i.e. never be in plain site.... without cover or concealment) in order to "appropriately" attempt the action - ruled upon by a DM.

This means that lighting, weather, etc plays a very important part during combat for stealth players.

Total Concealment and Total Cover is similar except that this makes observers not able to see the player at all and in THESE circumstances, you must use the "Target What You Can't See" rules.

What does this mean?

It means a Rogue player staying ducked behind a crate (normal cover) CAN attack stealthily each turn for Combat Advantage and Sneak Attack damage but CANNOT gain Total Concealment or Total Cover bonuses defensively by "stealthily moving" into the same square essentially.

What ever "condition" the player is in when they end their turn (cover, concealment, total cover, total concealment), that is the defensive bonus they get.  And when the player is in Total Concealment or Total Cover, they are not seen and this means monsters must make an active perception check to try and figure out their direction or square and then attack a square accordingly.

If a player is behind pillar 1 during combat and in dim light and wants to spend an move action to stealthily move to pillar 2 which is also in dim light, they could do so since they have "concealment".  HOWEVER, if there are any creatures that have low-light vision or dark vision, the low light does NOT provide concealment to the player, the player would be in plain site while between pillars and thus the stealth check would fail for THOSE observers.  Once this happens, the DM can negotiate communication rules and whether or not creatures with no special vision would be aware of their location or not.

Whether or not this is what is written, intended, or what have you.... this seems to make the most sense to me.  It essentially allows stealthers to have combat advantage pretty frequently (which is not a big deal really) but it doesn't grant them defensive bonuses beyond normal terrain or circumstances.

If a player is behind a wall which is several squares long and stealthily moves from 1 end of the wall to the other, thus maintaining cover the entire duration of the movement from observers, then for all intents and purposes.... yes, that player WOULD have total concealment for defensive purposes since observers who failed their perception check do not know where the player is.  The same thing would happen if the player had jumped into a small forest of dense foliage, smoke, fog, etc. 

The player cannot, however, stand behind a pillar in the middle of a room and expect to stealthily move 1 square away and 1 square back and then have total concealment.  Monsters, who are ever watchful during combat, would be aware if someone stepped out from behind cover, and with no other concealment, and moved somewhere.  Since the player never did this, whether the stealth check passes or not, the observers still know where the player is.... and no total concealment.


----------



## Tellerve (Jul 6, 2008)

Badapple said:


> With a fighter and paladin up front, the other 5 characters don't even have to find a pillar they can just stealth from behind the two frontliners and if they roll a 14 on the 20 sided die then they are more than likely able to get effectively +7?!?! to their defenses (+2 cover +5 being unseen) if they are even targetted.
> 
> I see a really ridiculous scenario where the fighter and paladin are up front and the rest of the party of 5 players are in single file behind, all using each other to stealth and gain CA on their turn.  The monster fighting the paladin is like "wtf" as the paladin directly in front of him seemingly sprouts 5 additional pairs of shiva arms all flinging ranged attacks at his vital spots.




page 280 of the PHB, allies never grant cover to your enemies.  So no hiding behind the fighter and paladin.

Tellerve


----------



## Tonester (Jul 6, 2008)

Tellerve said:


> page 280 of the PHB, allies never grant cover to your enemies. So no hiding behind the fighter and paladin.
> 
> Tellerve





This has been gone over several times in this thread, but since I don't expect any sane person to read this entire thread, I'll say it again.

That sentence means that if a ranger in the back of a party wants to shoot over his teammates, he can do so and the enemies he is shooting at will not benefit from cover being granted by your allies.

However, your own allies most certainly do provide cover for attacks made by your enemies and vice versa.

I.E. If you want to shoot a midflayer who is standing behind a troll, the mindflayer has cover from the troll.  And, if a kobold wants to peg your wizard standing 3 squares behind your fighter, he'll have to do so at a -2 penalty for the wizard having cover behind the fighter.

In short?  Your own teammates can't get in the way of your attacks, but your teammates do get in the way of enemy attacks.  This is only for ranged however.  Close, burst, blast, and melee attacks never benefit from creatures with regards to cover.  Only terrain can do this.


----------



## Tellerve (Jul 6, 2008)

ah, my bad.  After trying to read through this thread and going back and forth to the book to see how I would rule stuff versus how others are seeing it I guess I go my head a bit mushy 

Thanks,

Tellerve


----------



## bardolph (Jul 7, 2008)

Xorn said:


> For me it's in the rules: A success on stealth AVOIDS notice--it doesn't erase it.  If you've already been spotted, tough.  The tactics I'm reading throughout all the published material (read Heathen, man it's full of examples) support the notion that Stealth will not give combat advantage once you've been spotted.



Player's Handbook, p. 188: "Failure: You can't try again unless observers become distracted *or you manage to obtain cover or concealment.*" (emphasis mine).

This implies that, _even if you've been spotted,_ you can use Stealth to hide as soon as you gain cover or concealment.

The way I see it, as long as a Rogue makes a reasonable effort to maintain cover or concealment, the DM should give them the benefit of the doubt.  Combat is hard enough already: no need to deny Sneak Attack on the majority of their attacks.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jul 7, 2008)

But it's not just denying sneak attacks. It's denying every single character and monster the chance to get +5 to all defenses and turn invisible because they are standing in a bush or behind a corner.


----------



## bardolph (Jul 7, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> But it's not just denying sneak attacks. It's denying every single character and monster the chance to get +5 to all defenses and turn invisible because they are standing in a bush or behind a corner.



They also need to skip their attack, since attacking breaks their Stealth.  I think this is reasonable.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 8, 2008)

I don't think it's reasonable, and I think it more and more.  People have lots of ways to gain Combat Advantage without using Stealth.  13 other ways, in fact.  Asking the Rogue to break LOS completely before allowing another Stealth check (under cover or concealment then) isn't unreasonable, IMO.


----------



## Scribe Ineti (Jul 8, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> Asking the Rogue to break LOS completely before allowing another Stealth check (under cover or concealment then) isn't unreasonable, IMO.




I'd say this is entirely in the spirit of the rules as written. "Unless a creature is distracted, you must have cover against or concealment from the creature to make the Stealth check." (p. 188)

Seems pretty clear to me that if a Rogue has concealment, then attacks and ends that concealment, he or she should have to get out of the creature's LOS or notice in order to try concealment and stealth again. Just seems to be common sense, IMO.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 8, 2008)

Roxlimn said:


> I don't think it's reasonable, and I think it more and more.  People have lots of ways to gain Combat Advantage without using Stealth.  13 other ways, in fact.  Asking the Rogue to break LOS completely before allowing another Stealth check (under cover or concealment then) isn't unreasonable, IMO.




Everyone keeps focusing on the rogue.

It's not just about the rogue.  A ranger attacking at distance with stealth as a skill will often want to gain combat advantage from it, to offset the cover bonus he is granting his foe by placing himself behind cover to begin with. Your view would make cover a net harm to the Ranger's attacks on a fairly regular basis.


----------



## bardolph (Jul 8, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> But it's not just denying sneak attacks. It's denying every single character and monster the chance to get +5 to all defenses and turn invisible because they are standing in a bush or behind a corner.




All a creature has to do is get adjacent to the hidden character, and their stealth is blown.  -5 drops to -2.

Bottom line is that a Stealthy character can make themselves tough to target, therefore helping the Defender play their role, and allowing the party to function as it should.  This is a good thing.

The only time I think this would really be a problem is if the _monsters_ are using Stealth to avoid being targeted by the PCs.  How to play this?  I'm not sure how RAW it would be, but I would strip Hidden status from any creature that is adjacent to one of the PCs.


----------



## eamon (Jul 8, 2008)

I really hope that a clarification is released soon by WotC.  I find the trivial stealthing - potentially behind an ally that is smaller than you - which grants such high defensive bonuses to be disturbing.


----------



## Scribe Ineti (Jul 8, 2008)

bardolph said:


> All a creature has to do is get adjacent to the hidden character, and their stealth is blown.  -5 drops to -2.




Could you help explain where you're getting the -5 penalty from?

Is it:

concealed + successful Stealth roll = hidden from view = total concealment (-5 for targets to attack) 

?

I think that's the one thing confusing me about Stealth. Just what the heck does 'hidden from view' mean mechanically?


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 9, 2008)

*Mistwell:*

If the enemy has cover from the Ranger, then he has cover from them, too.  -2 to hit for +2 effective defenses across the board seems like a fair trade to me.  And that doesn't take Nimble Strike into account, where you can attack without penalty, and then move completely into Total Cover and not even get attacked.


----------

