The Rules Of Hidden Club: Targeting things you can't see in D&D.

1483 posts / 0 new
Last post
I wonder how they determined that it was a specific exception to the later but not the former? Lol.

Yeah.  Either its a global exception, or its not an exception at all.


Well, I think there is a coherent way to think of it.  Maybe when a power says you can make a stealth check, you can ignore any requirements that the power itself violates, but you have to meet any other requirements.  Since Gloaming Cut explicitly involves an attack, the requirement that you not attack is bypassed. 

Maybe.



Nothing says you need to not attack during an action to gain Hidden.  The two rules are "Can't become Hidden in the same action as losing Hidden" and "Can't attack while Hidden."

If you weren't Hidden, you use Gloaming Cut, attack, move, and become Hidden, no problem.

What this CS ruling is saying is that you *start Hidden*, use Gloaming Cut, attack (lose Hidden), move, become Hidden again.  While "keeping the benefits of Hidden until the action is complete".


Which is to say, that your Rogue was invisible and silent and everyone had to guess where he was, stabbed a dude, ran off, and became invisible and silent and everyone had to guess where he was again.... without ever LOSING "you must guess my location".

Which is quite hardcore!  If you can set that up and keep it working, that's a very cool and generally very powerful trick.

Thing is, I don't trust the Magic 8-Ball CS uses to get answers to begin with, and this answer, saying that "you can make a Stealth Check to become Hidden" overrules "can't gain Hidden as part of the same action that loses Hidden" but not "can't gain Hidden without meeting the requirements for Hidden"?  Is inconsistent.

Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
I wonder how they determined that it was a specific exception to the later but not the former? Lol.

Yeah.  Either its a global exception, or its not an exception at all.


Well, I think there is a coherent way to think of it.  Maybe when a power says you can make a stealth check, you can ignore any requirements that the power itself violates, but you have to meet any other requirements.  Since Gloaming Cut explicitly involves an attack, the requirement that you not attack is bypassed. 

Maybe.



Nothing says you need to not attack during an action to gain Hidden.  The two rules are "Can't become Hidden in the same action as losing Hidden" and "Can't attack while Hidden."

If you weren't Hidden, you use Gloaming Cut, attack, move, and become Hidden, no problem.

What this CS ruling is saying is that you *start Hidden*, use Gloaming Cut, attack (lose Hidden), move, become Hidden again.  While "keeping the benefits of Hidden until the action is complete".


Which is to say, that your Rogue was invisible and silent and everyone had to guess where he was, stabbed a dude, ran off, and became invisible and silent and everyone had to guess where he was again.... without ever LOSING "you must guess my location".

Which is quite hardcore!  If you can set that up and keep it working, that's a very cool and generally very powerful trick.

Thing is, I don't trust the Magic 8-Ball CS uses to get answers to begin with, and this answer, saying that "you can make a Stealth Check to become Hidden" overrules "can't gain Hidden as part of the same action that loses Hidden" but not "can't gain Hidden without meeting the requirements for Hidden"?  Is inconsistent.



 
I wouldn't call it "hardcore". More like edge-case usefull if you didn't also take Deft Stike. Compare.


Say you start hidden behind SCTC. With DS you get to move away from cover attack with CA and then go back to cover with a move action to hide again. With GC you have to attack where you are if you want CA (and remember SCTC usually blocks LOEorLOS) but you get to use the shift to hide again as part of the same action.

GC pros: You still have a move action and you are Hidden. You can use that Move Action for a second Stealth Roll if you need it or to get to a different square while you stay hidden.

DS pros: You do more damage. You are more likely to be able to focus fire on a desired target. The Power has way better feat support. With the Cunning Sneak Class Feature triggering only off of a Move Action (and not any old movement) a CS Rogue with Improved CS or can do this trick in simple cover. Also did I mention you do more damage?

What this CS ruling is saying is that you *start Hidden*, use Gloaming Cut, attack (lose Hidden), move, become Hidden again.  While "keeping the benefits of Hidden until the action is complete".

Which contradicts the other ruling that you have to obey all the normal rules for becoming hidden.  That's the problem.

All normal rules except the ones it explicitly needs to contradict in order to work?
All normal rules except the ones it explicitly needs to contradict in order to work?


That's what I think the principle is, but it's not perfectly clear that it should apply here.  The power would still work fine if it followed all the normal rules, you just wouldn't be able to hide if you were hidden before attacking.

What it would mean though is that the Stealth effect wouldn't actually do anything, since you would anyway be able to hide after using the power.  That sounds funny, but I think GC was written before the last stealth update.  So you could also say that the power was just nerfed by the update, and now doesn't do anything besides let you shift after the attack.
So you could also say that the power was just nerfed by the update, and now doesn't do anything besides let you shift after the attack.

Agreed.  In fact, I already suggested a change in the errata forum:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

That can be fixed with a change to the rule for Not Remaining Hidden's final sentence.  It could instead read:

Not Remaining Hidden: If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action. You can’t become hidden again at the end of an action that would cause you to not remain hidden, even if you were not hidden when you started the action, unless that action allows a Stealth Check.

With this change, you could never use Deft Strike or a Charge to hide at the end, but you could use Gloaming Strike.  IMO that fits in better with the apparent intent of the update, allowing all movement skills to be used with as part of movement.  Without unintentionally breaking the stealth skill, by allowing you to hide on actions you used to attack, and underpowering powers that specifically allow a stealth check at the end.



I thought I'd apply the Customer Support  Ruling to some other powers that have the "you may make a stealth roll to become hidden" rider and see where it went. Then I found something that I hadn't seen before (probably because I don't look at the melee rogue powers much). My first thought was that the power provided SCTC for non-CS rogues, but if a stealth  check would grant Hidden w/o cover like I origonally believed, anyone would benifit and the SCTC wouldn't need to be there. Since it does NOT, this power makes sense.

Shadow Boxer  Rogue Encounter Attack 7
Martial, Weapon
Standard Action  Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 1  [WI + Dexterity modifier damage, and until the end
of your next turn, the target grants superior cover to you
while you are adjacent to it .
Effect: You  can make a Stealth check to become hidden.
 Cunning Sneak: You gain a bonus to the Stealth check
 equal to your Intelligence modifier.

The power grants SCTC itself so the effect works whether you began Hidden or not. Follow up Movement and Attack powers get SCTC as well. But the dependancy on being adjacent to your target, for cover to not be blown, removes some of it's defensive utility and the low damage make it something better left ignored, at least by my character build.

Below are a couple of other Powers I thought I'd comment on in relation to the FAQ and the CS Ruling.

Fleeting Spirit Strike  Rogue Attack 3
Encounter. Martial, Weapon
Standard Action  Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be Wielding a crossbow, a  light
blade, or a sling.
Effect: Before  the attack, you shift 3 squares.
 Cunning Sneak: After the shift, you can make a Stealth
 check to become hidden. 
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 2[Wj + Dexterity modifier damage. You shift 3
squares.
 Cunning Sneak: After the shift, you can make a Stealth
 check to become hidden.

The first stealth check is only useful if you began the Action Unhidden end the movement in SCTC and Hide. The specific exception it grants is becoming Hidden mid-action instead of at the end of the action.  So it works with Deft Strike type tactics. 

The second stealth check functions like Gloaming Cut's Shift and allows you to rehide in SCTC. The exception it grants is Hiding as part of the same action that caused you to become unhidden.


Veiled Missile  Rogue Attack 13
Encounter. Martial, Weapon
Standard Action  Ranged weapon
Requirement You must be wielding a crossbow, a light
blade, or a sling.
Target One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs.  Reflex
Hit: 3[W] + Dexterity modifier damage. You  gain conceal­
ment against the target until  the end of your next turn.
 Cunning Sneak: You  can make a Stealth check to become
 hidden.

This one grants conceament that moves with you, but only if you hit and only vs the target. To Hide with the steath check you need to have attacked from SCTC, which I find often hard to do. Also note that the power doesn't "involve movement" but still grants a  stealth check to hide. That's a Specific Exception right there. You could then take a Move Action and STAY hidden with the Two Rounds of concealment vs the target. Damage doesn't suck either.

I don't agree with the CS take on Becoming Hidden in the same action that caused you to loose Hidden being some Specific vs General.

Hell, if a Power says you gain CA against an enemy but you're Blind, you won't  because you have to see a target to have CA against it.

Same thing. It can allow you to make a Stealth check. But just not in the same action loosing Hidden.

Which is General and which is Specific ? It always comes back to that. Is Gloaming Cut specifying you make a Stealth Check to Become Hidden even if you lost Hidden while using it ? No. So it doesn't overide it. That's not what is needed in order to trump a General Rule, that it include the component being overidden within the game element in question ?
I don't agree with the CS take on Becoming Hidden in the same action that caused you to loose Hidden being some Specific vs General.

Hell, if a Power says you gain CA against an enemy but you're Blind, you won't  because you have to see a target to have CA against it.

Same thing. It can allow you to make a Stealth check. But just not in the same action loosing Hidden.

Which is General and which is Specific ? It always comes back to that. Is Gloaming Cut specifying you make a Stealth Check to Become Hidden even if you lost Hidden while using it ? No. So it doesn't overide it. That's not what is needed in order to trump a General Rule, that it include the component being overidden within the game element in question ?



I think you need to look at the whole picture with all the powers that use the rider. What I'm trying to show above is that the "...you may make a Stealth Check" rider modifier has to trump as specific vs general in different ways, because it is applied to powers that only need it in certain and different ways.

I do think the FAQ ruling itself is a mistake, unnecessary, and makes one wonder what other general requirements they'll decide it won't work against. But, barring further eratta to the rider, I can see they aren't broken, they've just become a lot more situational and much harder to use effectively. 

I can tell you I wouldn't be looking at using any of them on a character that cannot self-generate reliable non-LOS blocking SCTC. If the FAQ holds, the CustSvc ruling is consistant, and it becomes codified as errata I'd say Cunning Rogues have become recommended for Drow Only or as your Versitile Rogue pick at epic after you pick up the high level items needed to make the powers work each encounter.
What those Power trump would be then that you can normally only make a Stealth check only at the end of a Move Action or a Power that makes you move otherwise.

You even need the Superior Cover or Total Concealment in order to even make it according to the FAQ, where the concensus on the board (IIRC) was that you'd do it but would need at least Cover or Concealment in order to Remain Hidden.
What those Power trump would be then that you can normally only make a Stealth check only at the end of a Move Action or a Power that makes you move otherwise.

You even need the Superior Cover or Total Concealment in order to even make it according to the FAQ, where the concensus on the board (IIRC) was that you'd do it but would need at least Cover or Concealment in order to Remain Hidden.



Right. I must have misread your post, because we seem to agree.

I don't agree with the CS take on Becoming Hidden in the same action that caused you to loose Hidden being some Specific vs General.


I agree with you here, with the exception that if the power that caused you to lose hidden also assumed you were hidden to start, then I would agree with CS that it's a case of specific vs general.
But in general, you don't have to be hidden to make an attack.

WotC needs to go back to the Cunning Sneak and retool it for the latest stealth changes. Hopefully they are just waiting till the latest stealth changes get fully tested/played out before doing so. How many rulesets for Stealth have their been for 4e, three?

"Oh bother." sighed Pooh as he chambered another round.
I agree with you here, with the exception that if the power that caused you to lose hidden also assumed you were hidden to start, then I would agree with CS that it's a case of specific vs general. But in general, you don't have to be hidden to make an attack.

Fleeting Spirit Strike comes pretty close.

I actually agree with the CustServ ruling (shock!  horror!) in terms of it probably being what was RAI for powers suck as Gloaming Strike.  I just don't that both rulings taken together match RAW.  Either it's specific for all purposes, or for none.  (edit: and in my opinion it's more correctly interpreted as none.)

I don't agree with the CS take on Becoming Hidden in the same action that caused you to loose Hidden being some Specific vs General.


I agree with you here, with the exception that if the power that caused you to lose hidden also assumed you were hidden to start, then I would agree with CS that it's a case of specific vs general.
But in general, you don't have to be hidden to make an attack.

WotC needs to go back to the Cunning Sneak and retool it for the latest stealth changes. Hopefully they are just waiting till the latest stealth changes get fully tested/played out before doing so. How many rulesets for Stealth have their been for 4e, three?




Yeah could be in the event that a Power would require you to be Hidden, attack and make a Stealth Check right after. Or they may have made some making a Stealth Check as a Free Action after, which would then be a different Action than the one that made you not Remain Hidden. I'll have a look at MP2 Stealthy Powers and try to find any.
Another issue that LOW might want to put in the guide is using Bluff to 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 passive Insight check of any enemy that can see you. If you succeed, make a Stealth check opposed by the passive Perception check of any enemy present. If the Stealth check succeeds against an enemy, you are hidden from that enemy until the end of your turn or until you attack.

I have always read this as explicitly bypassing the normal requirements to become and remain hidden.  So this would let you hide without any cover or concealment, but only until the end of your turn.  I think that if you arrange to have cover/concealment by the end of your turn, you would then remain hiding per the normal rules.

But I'm not sure if that's the generally accepted interpretation.
Another issue that LOW might want to put in the guide is using Bluff to 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 passive Insight check of any enemy that can see you. If you succeed, make a Stealth check opposed by the passive Perception check of any enemy present. If the Stealth check succeeds against an enemy, you are hidden from that enemy until the end of your turn or until you attack.

I have always read this as explicitly bypassing the normal requirements to become and remain hidden.  So this would let you hide without any cover or concealment, but only until the end of your turn.  I think that if you arrange to have cover/concealment by the end of your turn, you would then remain hiding per the normal rules.

But I'm not sure if that's the generally accepted interpretation.



That's similar to how Chameleon works - once Chameleon succeeds, you no longer need Cover or Concealment to stay Hidden, no matter where you go, until Chameleon wears off.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
As a standard action, make a Bluff check opposed by the passive Insight check of any enemy that can see you. If you succeed, make a Stealth check opposed by the passive Perception check of any enemy present.

That's bizarre.  The second sentence should almost certainly say "make a stealth check opposed by each enemy you succeeded with your Bluff check against" or some such.

As it as, you only have to succeed against one passive insight of all the enemies that can see you to make a stealth check against each enemy present.  Basically it's roll bluff vs the lowest passive insight of enemies that can see you.

I thought it meant that any enemy who can see you can oppose the check.

Like if you said "my airplane is faster than any car," it means that it is faster than all cars.

But it certainly would have been clearer to say "each enemy that can see you."

In that case it'll be the lowest value of all enemies that choose to oppose the roll.  Do they have to guess if they are the lowest and should not oppose it?  Do they discuss it amongst themselves? 

You only have to succeed against one target to get to make the stealth check.

Another issue that LOW might want to put in the guide is using Bluff to 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 passive Insight check of any enemy that can see you. If you succeed, make a Stealth check opposed by the passive Perception check of any enemy present. If the Stealth check succeeds against an enemy, you are hidden from that enemy until the end of your turn or until you attack.

I have always read this as explicitly bypassing the normal requirements to become and remain hidden.  So this would let you hide without any cover or concealment, but only until the end of your turn.  I think that if you arrange to have cover/concealment by the end of your turn, you would then remain hiding per the normal rules.

But I'm not sure if that's the generally accepted interpretation.




The original Stealth rules in PHB had a section on 'Distracted Creature' on p188 which explicitly stated that you did not need cover or concealment to hide from that creature.

In the errata version that section is gone and the Becoming Hidden section has this addition 'Outside combat, the DM can allow you to make a Stealth check against a distracted enemy, even if you don’t have superior cover or total concealment'.

This seems to leave Bluff diversion quite broken as a combat action.
The original PHB text says basically the same thing.  It says you can hide from a distracted creature even if you don't have cover/concealment, but that creatures in combat are assumed to be paying attention, so that would only come up outside of combat.  So I don't think that rule has changed much.

If Create a Diversion to Hide allow you to make a Stealth Check without any Cover or Concealment and doesn't mention requiring any to Become or Remain Hidden, why would  Gloaming Cut or similar Powers need such statement i wonder ? What about Fleeting Ghost then ? Why Distracting Shot would require Total Concealment or Superior Cover ?


Here are a couple Powers that allow Stealth Check in PHB, MP and MP2 only that i skimmed through. I left out most Powers requiring you to already be Hidden ton concentrate to the one Hiding you specifically.

Unmoving Power allowing Stealth Check to Hide with Superior Cover or Total Concealment:
Distracting Shot (MP2-59)

Unmoving Power allowing Stealth Check to Hide with Cover or Concealment only
Shadow Master  (MP2-66)

Unmoving Power allowing Stealth Check to Hide without any Cover or Concealment:
Shadow Boxer  (MP2-63)
Veiled Missile  (MP2-65)

Moving Power allowing Stealth Check to Hide with Superior Cover or Total Concealment
N/a

Moving Power allowing Stealth Check to Hide with Cover or Concealment only:
From The Shadow*  (MP 78)

Moving Power allowing Stealth Check to Hide without any Cover or Concealment:
Fleeting Ghost  (PHB 119)
Fleeting Spirit Strike*  (MP2-60)
Shadow Steel Roll  (MP2-61)
Lurker Assault  (MP2-61)
Killer’s Ambush  (MP2-62)
Clever Move  (MP2-66)
Killer’s Retreat  (MP2-69)
Shadow To Shadow*  (MP2-76)

* Powers allowing movement or Stealth Check before and after the attack, creating a conflicting double Hide situation using the same action spent.



I hope the upcoming Rule Compendium clear things up...And if they do, there will probably be some Powers that will need to be revisited.

1. If a Stealth Check to Become Hidden is allowed, can i make it even without sufficient Cover or Concealment ?
 
2. And if i can, do i still need a minimum of Cover or Concealment in order to Remain hidden immidiatly after Hiding ?


If Create a Diversion to Hide allow you to make a Stealth Check without any Cover or Concealment and doesn't mention requiring any to Become or Remain Hidden, why would  Gloaming Cut or similar Powers need such statement i wonder ? What about Fleeting Ghost then ? Why Distracting Shot would require Total Concealment or Superior Cover ?



Well, we have the FAQ now to tell us about Gloaming Cut, at least


To be fair, creating a diversion is different in that it specifically says that if the Stealth check succeeds, then you become hidden.  I think all the other powers you mention simply say you make a stealth check, so you could reasonably assume that you have to go back to the general stealth rules to find out what that means.

Good catch jaelis. 

And i does say what happen if you succeed and for how long and what breaks it.  If i am reading correctly, someone Hidden by successfully Creating a Diversion to Hide could Run, yell and get away from Cover and still Remain Hidden because it state you are Hidden from that enemy until the end of your turn or until you attack. Can't be  isn't it ? When a conditional duration is given, is it inclusive or exclusive, like for Grabs etc...
Good catch jaelis. 

And i does say what happen if you succeed and for how long and what breaks it.  If i am reading correctly, someone Hidden by successfully Creating a Diversion to Hide could Run, yell and get away from Cover and still Remain Hidden because it state you are Hidden from that enemy until the end of your turn or until you attack. Can't be  isn't it ? When a conditional duration is given, is it inclusive or exclusive, like for Grabs etc...




It doesn't say it removes the requirements to stay hidden, it just sets an upper limit on the time.  Like "grabbed until the end of my next turn" or even "stunned until the end of your next turn" - if something removes the Stun or breaks the grab, the grab ends even though it hasn't hit it's duration, because there are things that say "end Hidden" or "break grabs" and the power doesn't override them.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
Good catch jaelis. 

And i does say what happen if you succeed and for how long and what breaks it.  If i am reading correctly, someone Hidden by successfully Creating a Diversion to Hide could Run, yell and get away from Cover and still Remain Hidden because it state you are Hidden from that enemy until the end of your turn or until you attack. Can't be  isn't it ? When a conditional duration is given, is it inclusive or exclusive, like for Grabs etc...




It doesn't say it removes the requirements to stay hidden, it just sets an upper limit on the time.  Like "grabbed until the end of my next turn" or even "stunned until the end of your next turn" - if something removes the Stun or breaks the grab, the grab ends even though it hasn't hit it's duration, because there are things that say "end Hidden" or "break grabs" and the power doesn't override them.



Got ti. Thanks.  
You might also want to discuss the differences between Blind the creature keyword and Blinded the condition.

Creatures that are Blind (ie, have the Blind keyword) almost always have a secondary sight system (tremorsense, etc). And nothing in the game system adds the Blind keyword to anything. There is no Blind effect or condition that can applied to characters outside of DM fiat.

Blinded however, is a condition that affects sight, but does not make the character Blind. Technically, with blinded, you can still see, you just see poorly (hence the -5), but nothing has happened to remove LOS to anything. I like to think of blinded as sand in the eyes, you can't see very well due to tearing and you are distracted by the grit in your eye, so that affects your performance, but nothing else.

I think it's particularily important to this topic because people typically talk about being blinded and wanting to start giving things invisibility. Or combining blinded with deafened to gain hidden.

Also you might want to note how invisibility interacts with things like Hunters Quarry and Warlock's Curses which explicitly state "nearest creature that you can see".



No.
 
Blinded has specified penalties on pg277 of the PHB. They are...
✦ You grant combat advantage.
✦ You can’t see any target (your targets have total
concealment).
✦ You take a –10 penalty to Perception checks.
✦ You can’t flank an enemy.
Great guide, LOW.  I found the stealth rules to be a bit, well, vague, and your guide clears a lot of issues up.

Would love to get your thoughts (and everyone else's) about some of the powers that have been discussed earlier in the thread in some specific situations.  Chameleon and Hide in Plain Sight, to be specific. 

Let's say I'm playing a Ranger with the Darkstrider PP.  So, hidden is a big deal, not only does it keep my enemies from being able to effectively target me, it also give me a significant damage bones to each attack.  Since I'm a Ranger, I'm probably attacking multiple times each round, so that damage bonus get potentially multiplied each round I can attack while hidden. 

So, our adventuring party is in the forest.  We get the drop on the bad guys, so my DM let's me make a stealth check, since they don't know we're there.  I succeed, fire, get my CA and my damage bonus, cool.  But, since I have also multiclassed into Rogue, I also have the Chameleon power.  I am no longer hidden, but I use the at-will Chameleon to maintain my hidden state through to the end of my next turn.  Now I have two rounds where I get to have my CA and my damage bonus, yay!  We are in a forest, however, with many trees, so next round, while Chameleon is still active, I take a move action, get cover behind another tree, and, since I am still hidden, I can make another stealth check using only cover.  I pass, make my attack, rinse, repeat.  As long as I can keep making successful checks, I can stay hidden the entire encounter.  I'm happy, my DM, not so much.

Am I interpreting that correctly?

Next, I've gained a few levels, and been able to pick up the Hide in Plain Sight power.  So, now, as long as I can become hidden, I can use that power as a minor, and attack.  I get the hidden benefit for the action in which I attack, and then I am no longer hidden, but as long as I stay in the same square, I am invisible, meaning I have total concealment.  So my enemies know where I am, but they have a -5 to hit me.  Next round, though, I make a "move 0" and, since I am invisible, can make another stealth check, become hidden, and gain those damage bonuses again, right?  Until one of my enemies moves adjacent to me, forcing me to either move or engage in melee, I'm adding a lot of extra damage to my attacks.

Again, am I reading this right?

Thanks for your help...

Show
Great guide, LOW.  I found the stealth rules to be a bit, well, vague, and your guide clears a lot of issues up.

Would love to get your thoughts (and everyone else's) about some of the powers that have been discussed earlier in the thread in some specific situations.  Chameleon and Hide in Plain Sight, to be specific. 

Let's say I'm playing a Ranger with the Darkstrider PP.  So, hidden is a big deal, not only does it keep my enemies from being able to effectively target me, it also give me a significant damage bones to each attack.  Since I'm a Ranger, I'm probably attacking multiple times each round, so that damage bonus get potentially multiplied each round I can attack while hidden. 

So, our adventuring party is in the forest.  We get the drop on the bad guys, so my DM let's me make a stealth check, since they don't know we're there.  I succeed, fire, get my CA and my damage bonus, cool.  But, since I have also multiclassed into Rogue, I also have the Chameleon power.  I am no longer hidden, but I use the at-will Chameleon to maintain my hidden state through to the end of my next turn.  Now I have two rounds where I get to have my CA and my damage bonus, yay!  We are in a forest, however, with many trees, so next round, while Chameleon is still active, I take a move action, get cover behind another tree, and, since I am still hidden, I can make another stealth check using only cover.  I pass, make my attack, rinse, repeat.  As long as I can keep making successful checks, I can stay hidden the entire encounter.  I'm happy, my DM, not so much.

Am I interpreting that correctly?

Next, I've gained a few levels, and been able to pick up the Hide in Plain Sight power.  So, now, as long as I can become hidden, I can use that power as a minor, and attack.  I get the hidden benefit for the action in which I attack, and then I am no longer hidden, but as long as I stay in the same square, I am invisible, meaning I have total concealment.  So my enemies know where I am, but they have a -5 to hit me.  Next round, though, I make a "move 0" and, since I am invisible, can make another stealth check, become hidden, and gain those damage bonuses again, right?  Until one of my enemies moves adjacent to me, forcing me to either move or engage in melee, I'm adding a lot of extra damage to my attacks.

Again, am I reading this right?

Thanks for your help...




Chameleon is an Immediate Action power, so you cannot use it on your turn.

Some DMs don't like Move:0, but you can go prone(minor) and stand up(move action) and get the same result. Squeezing is another Move Action that can work.
Ah, there is my mistake.  So Chameleon is a great power should an enemy make a perception check, stumble upon your hiding place, disintegrate the thing you're hiding behind, etc., but it is not useful for offensive purposes.

Yeah, I wasn't so sure about the move 0 thing, either.  I had seen reference to it earlier in this thread, so I thought I'd ask.   Guess it'll have to be the DM's call.  

Thanks for your help, RavenQueenBlade. 

So, our adventuring party is in the forest.  We get the drop on the bad guys, so my DM let's me make a stealth check, since they don't know we're there.  I succeed, fire, get my CA and my damage bonus, cool.  But, since I have also multiclassed into Rogue, I also have the Chameleon power.  I am no longer hidden, but I use the at-will Chameleon to maintain my hidden state through to the end of my next turn.



No, wrong.

First:  Chameleon is an Immediate Interrupt, meaning you *can't* use it on your own turn, ever.
Second:  Chameleon only lets you retain Hidden when you would lose it due to a lack of Cover or Concealment (not because you attacked), and it only removes the restriction requiring Cover or Concealment.  If you attack, you lose Hidden, regardless of Chameleon.  If someone moves into your square you lose Hidden, regardless of Chameleon.

Now I have two rounds where I get to have my CA and my damage bonus, yay!  We are in a forest, however, with many trees, so next round, while Chameleon is still active, I take a move action, get cover behind another tree, and, since I am still hidden, I can make another stealth check using only cover.  I pass, make my attack, rinse, repeat.  As long as I can keep making successful checks, I can stay hidden the entire encounter.  I'm happy, my DM, not so much.



Understandably!  And yeah, you're doing it wrong.

Chameleon is so you can stay Hidden when either the battlefield changes (your source of Cover/Concealment disappears) or the monsters move (they come around the corner you're hiding behind.  It's not useful on your own turn, and it ONLY removes the LoS restrictions, not any of the other requirements to become and/or stay Hidden.

What you really want to do is move to a place where you can get Hidden, then either attack from there (if you can) or Nimble Strike out and attack from 1 square away, then repeat every round.

Next, I've gained a few levels, and been able to pick up the Hide in Plain Sight power.  So, now, as long as I can become hidden, I can use that power as a minor, and attack.  I get the hidden benefit for the action in which I attack, and then I am no longer hidden, but as long as I stay in the same square, I am invisible, meaning I have total concealment.  So my enemies know where I am, but they have a -5 to hit me.  Next round, though, I make a "move 0" and, since I am invisible, can make another stealth check, become hidden, and gain those damage bonuses again, right?  Until one of my enemies moves adjacent to me, forcing me to either move or engage in melee, I'm adding a lot of extra damage to my attacks.

Again, am I reading this right?



This one, you're perfectly correct on, with one small caveat:  "-5 to hit me" should be "-5 to hit me with melee and ranged attacks".  Close and Area attacks ignore concealment and take no penalty, but apart from that you're perfectly correct.

Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
Ah, there is my mistake.  So Chameleon is a great power should an enemy make a perception check, stumble upon your hiding place, disintegrate the thing you're hiding behind, etc., but it is not useful for offensive purposes.

Yeah, I wasn't so sure about the move 0 thing, either.  I had seen reference to it earlier in this thread, so I thought I'd ask.   Guess it'll have to be the DM's call.  

Thanks for your help, RavenQueenBlade. 



Move 0 is fine RAW. It's how we play. But so is the funky chicken prone dance (that I HATE). Squeezing is probably the most believably thematic way to hide while using a move action without leaving a square. They all are RAW

@LOW, thanks for the clear explanation.  I knew there was a flaw in my logic, wasn't seeing where.

We've been playing in a campaign for a long time where the one rogue in the party used stealth primarily in non-combat situations, or so that he could get in one sneak attack in per encounter.  As a result, I don't think anyone in the group is exactly clear on the stealth rules, but it just hasn't been an issue until now.  Due to a twist in the campaign, half of us, myself included, will be creating new, low-paragon-level PCs, and the Darkstrider PC is going to make it important that we're all *very* clear on the rules, for obvious reasons.

Thanks to both of you for your help.
 
I present...

Squeeze (pg 292 PHB) as a technique to obtain entry to The Hidden Club. Note: Been using it  for a while works brilliantly in our game.
 
Superior Cover requires something that prevents LOS

Cover requires some kind of hard cover like a waist height wall.

Squeezing allows you to occupy a space smaller than you normally do.

Do the maths and make comments for and against.

Of course it is excellent for a Large or larger creature.  But the effect of squeezing for a Medium or Small character is kind of up to the DM.    Maybe the best way to use it would be for the DM to set up some terrain features that specifically say they provide cover/concealment, but only if you are squeezing.   Basically to just think about it ahead of time and know what objects you can hide behind this way and what you can't.
I'd treat it the same way as going Prone to hide behind an object:  DM call.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
LoW and Crew: Fantastic debates and as someone who plays a secondary character rogue, I really appreciate the articulable differences between "Hidden" and "Invisible".  

My question is regarding Blinded.  From what I could gather, a Blinded PC can still attack/move as normal, except for the specifically listed penalties.

✦ You grant combat advantage.
✦ You can’t see any target (your targets have total concealment).
✦ You take a –10 penalty to Perception checks.
✦ You can’t flank an enemy. 

My DM focuses on the "you can't see any target" descriptor as the reason why a PC would need to have some reason for being able to identify what square an enemy is in to attack it.  

For example:
Monster lobs a ranged attack against my rogue that blinds him.  (Characters are 3 squares apart)
Monster uses its Move Action to move three additional squares. (Characters are now 6 apart)
My DM would rule that the rogue could not move to engage the Mob because he "can't see the target" and therefore it is meta to have my PC move to the appropriate square and attack. 

Could you please articulate, as clearly as possible, why it is that (if I'm understanding the previous discussions) my Rogue would be able to engage a monster when he is blinded?  

Thanks!
Could you please articulate, as clearly as possible, why it is that (if I'm understanding the previous discussions) my Rogue would be able to engage a monster when he is blinded?

Because Invisible is not Hidden.

You can hear the guy, possibly among other ways of sensing his location.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose


My DM focuses on the "you can't see any target" descriptor as the reason why a PC would need to have some reason for being able to identify what square an enemy is in to attack it. 



This is wrong.  Just because you can't see a monster doesn't mean you don't know what square it's in.

My DM would rule that the rogue could not move to engage the Mob because he "can't see the target" and therefore it is meta to have my PC move to the appropriate square and attack.



Your DM is wrong, because the monster is not Hidden from you, therefore you know where it is.  Why?  Because everyone always knows where everyone is, all the time, unless they are Hidden.

The monster attacked, meaning even if it WAS Hidden before, it lost hidden.  It then moved (while not Hidden) so you know where it ended up.

It *could* then roll Stealth to become Hidden, but you'd still know where it was before it made the attempt.

Could you please articulate, as clearly as possible, why it is that (if I'm understanding the previous discussions) my Rogue would be able to engage a monster when he is blinded? 



Because nothing about being Blinded says you don't know where a monster is.  There is one and only one status in the game that lets someone hide their location from you, and that is Hidden.  There are rules for becoming Hidden, staying Hidden, and what Hidden does, and this enemy has not followed them, therefore he is not Hidden, therefore you know where he is.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
My DM, who is a real rules stickler, has ruled that rolling a stealth check at the end of a move does not mean that's when you are hidden.  It is mechanically when you roll, but you get hidden somewhere along the way so that once you are hidden PCs or monster must truly guess you location without any further information.

This seems to play better into the intent of the rules to me, and follow the letter, too, as the rules do not state when you actually become hidden, only when you make the check.
Sign In to post comments