|
2 years ago ::
Jul 01, 2008 - 11:51AM
#1
|
|
|
I've been reading and re-reading the various threads on using stealth in combat, and there sure are lots of different opinions out there, but I'm starting to think that the RAW are mostly clear; they just don't describe what people want or expect.
The following situations give an attacker combat advantage against a defender:
When a defender is...
[...]
• Unable to see the attacker (page 281)
• Unaware of you (page 188)
Success: You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view.
Combat Advantage: You have combat advantage against a target that isn't aware of you.[/quote]
Key point: A successful stealth role BY ITSELF does not give you combat advantage. CA is only given if the defender can't see the attacker or is unaware of the attacker.
The "can't see" state means "total concealment": the attacker is invisible, in a completely obscured square or not adjacent while heavily obscured. (DMG 61 also states that 5 or more lightly obscured squares provide total concealment). In this case, you do NOT need a stealth check to gain CA. You *do* need to do a stealth check to see if the target knows where you are to determine if they can attack you, but CA is automatic.
The RAW do NOT state or imply that shooting around a corner or through an arrow slit provides any sort of concealment, only cover. The RAW do not state or imply that cover ever grants CA.
The "unaware" state is not ever defined in game terms, but the dictionary definition is clear enough. Once someone has spotted your rogue once, they know the rogue exists and thus are no longer "unaware". No number of stealth roles, teleportation, invisibility potions will remove that awareness from the target. (That's a cool idea for a power, tho. You can make one target forget about one ally, giving them a chance to sneak around.)
You can still roll stealth to move around without being noticed (so they can't attack you), and if you can get to a totally obscured square, you'll get CA from not being seen, but you can't ever regain that "unaware" state.
Don't get me wrong, using stealth to get CA during combat is a great idea, one I'm sure to house rule, but the RAW simply doesn't support this. I'll repeat that because it's important: Neither the PHB nor the DMG indicate that you can obtain combat advantage by making a successful stealth roll. "Unawareness" is a fragile state, and failing a single stealth roll will lose it for you and you ain't never getting it back.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 01, 2008 - 12:16PM
#2
|
|
|
The following situations give an attacker combat
advantage against a defender.
When a defender is . . .
Balancing (page 180)
Blinded (page 277)
Climbing (page 182)
Dazed (page 277)
Flanked by the attacker (page 285)
Helpless (page 277)
Prone (melee attacks only) (page 277)
Restrained (page 277)
Running (page 291)
Squeezing (page 292)
Stunned (page 277)
Surprised (page 277)
Unable to see the attacker (page 281)
Unaware of you (page 188)
Unconscious (page 277)[/quote]
Obviously, you only need ONE SEPARATE item on the list.
It is not Unable to see AND Unaware.
Merely "Unable to see" is sufficient.
As for stealth, page 188: Success: avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view.
Hidden from view = unable to see.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 01, 2008 - 12:58PM
#3
|
|
|
Obviously, you only need ONE SEPARATE item on the list.
Never meant to imply otherwise.
As for stealth, page 188: Success: avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view.
Hidden from view = unable to see.
That success sentence has three readings, it seems to me:
• You avoid notice, since you were unheard and hidden from view.
• You avoid notice, and remain unheard and hidden from view.
• You avoid notice, and become unheard and hidden from view.
You are taking the third reading: A successful stealth roll makes you invisible.
Somehow, that feels wrong to me, though. Why doesn't the stealth block say "if you succeed, you can't be seen, and thus gain CA"? It specifically calls out that you gain CA if the defender is unaware of you. Why even have the "unaware of you" condition if stealth makes you unseen?
And doesn't that mean that any successful stealth rolls would make attacks against you -5? And if so, why isn't this called out explicitly? Doesn't that make stealth a tad overpowered? If you can hide with a normal stealth roll, what's the point of Bluff and Shadow Stride then?
I feel the the first or second reading are more natural in isolation (it's strange to drop the verb in a phrase that indicates a change, much more common to drop the verb in a phrase that does not), and neither of them leads to further questions about the rest of the rules. You can argue that this nerfs stealth (no argument from me!), but those readings are consistent with the rest of the text.
In short: If you assume the third reading, several other parts of the system become confusing or pointless, and stealth is overpowered. If you assume the first or second reading, the rest of the rules make perfect sense, but stealth no longer allows you to gain combat advantage (except right at the start of the fight). But this is balanced by the many other conditions and powers which grant combat advantage!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 01, 2008 - 2:12PM
#4
|
|
|
In short: If you assume the third reading, several other parts of the system become confusing or pointless, and stealth is overpowered. If you assume the first or second reading, the rest of the rules make perfect sense, but stealth no longer allows you to gain combat advantage (except right at the start of the fight). But this is balanced by the many other conditions and powers which grant combat advantage!
Stealth is NOT over powered.
In fact, stealth is REQUIRED for a ranged rogue to have damage parity with a ranger.
A melee rogue gets combat advantage from flanking.
A ranged rogue gets combat advantage from using cover and stealth.
With sneak attack, a rogue does slightly more damage than a ranger. The rogue won't always have it, but the rogue does need a reliable way to get it.
Stealth is not game breaking for other classes either: +2 to hit is very good, but not broken.
Finding someone stealthed is not that hard:
Passive Perception
Minor/Standard actions for active perception rolls
Ready Action for a charge or a ranged attack when the stealther reveals themselves
Area attacks (even melee classes have some bursts)
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 01, 2008 - 2:49PM
#5
|
|
|
Please forget about when you can make a stealth check (no one is agruing this) and focus on what making a stealth check does or allows. Even forgeting the whole CA angle what about the OPs statements regarding attack penalties?
Here's how I see the RAW:
Normal cover allows you to make a stealth check (PHB pg 188). (True?)
Passing a stealth check makes you hidden (i.e. unseen) (PHB pg 188). (True?)
You can't be seen = Total Concealment (PHB Pg 281). (True?)
Thus normal cover+passed stealth check = total concealment (True?)
Thus a passed stealth check turns normal cover (-2) into total concealment (-5). (true?)
Are any of these statement not true according to the RAW?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 01, 2008 - 4:24PM
#6
|
|
|
Please forget about when you can make a stealth check (no one is agruing this) and focus on what making a stealth check does or allows. Even forgeting the whole CA angle what about the OPs statements regarding attack penalties?
Here's how I see the RAW:
Normal cover allows you to make a stealth check (PHB pg 188). (True?)
Passing a stealth check makes you hidden (i.e. unseen) (PHB pg 188). (True?)
You can't be seen = Total Concealment (PHB Pg 281). (True?)
Thus normal cover+passed stealth check = total concealment (True?)
Thus a passed stealth check turns normal cover (-2) into total concealment (-5). (true?)
Are any of these statement not true according to the RAW?
Without my books in front of me, I will only comment on the last one. I'd say that if your other statements are true, then you don't turn the cover into total concealment, you ADD total concealment to your cover, giving (-2 + -5) = -7 penalty to those attacking you (unless I am missing some rule about not stacking cover and concealment).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 01, 2008 - 5:34PM
#7
|
|
|
Delgaddo, I'd disagree with the second statement: Passing a stealth check KEEPS you hidden, it does not make you hidden.
Morikal, stacking cover and concealment seems important enough for them to explicitly specify one way or another, but as far as I can tell, they don't. I believe that means they stack.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 01, 2008 - 5:42PM
#8
|
|
|
A Rogue can gain combat advantage if the opponent is unaware of their presence, they have total concealment/invisibility, the opponent hasn't acted yet, or while flanking.
If the Rogue is being stealthy, they can try to get in a big attack from hiding at the beginning of combat, but they likely reveal their presence by doing so. Once the enemies have become aware of the Rogue's presence, the Rogue may begin positioning to flank their enemies if they do not have a way to become invisible or attack from total concealment.
The only time cover from an ally can grant combat advantage to the Rogue is if the Rogue is being stealthy and hiding behind an ally when the combat starts.
This seems to be the direction in which the rules in the PHB seem to point. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 01, 2008 - 5:59PM
#9
|
|
|
Stealth is NOT over powered.
In fact, stealth is REQUIRED for a ranged rogue to have damage parity with a ranger.
I see no evidence that a primarily ranged rogue is intended. There are only three ranged-only powers for rogues, and lots of melee-only. The flavour text for the Rogue's role is "You dart in to attack, do massive damage, and then retreat to safety." Two of the paragon paths are melee-only, and the other two allow melee or ranged.
But that's the weakest of my points. Let's say stealth isn't overpowered. What about the other inconsistencies in the rules that are resolved with the first or second readings?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 01, 2008 - 6:02PM
#10
|
|
|
Lootus: That is my interpretation exactly. A rogue has other ways to gain CA in the heat of the battle now, stealth just isn't a big deal during combat.
|
|
|
