RPGCentric » Blog Archive » 4E D&D: Revisiting the Stealth Rules

4E D&D: Revisiting the Stealth Rules

Last month, I wrote a post regarding the way that the stealth rules work in D&D 4E. Since that time, Wizards has introduced updated stealth rules in the D&D Compendium (which I reviewed last month). With the update, two major changes have been made.

When can I make the stealth check to hide?

It now specifically states that you can only make a stealth check at the end of a move action. So, now, you move, hide, then attack if you want. There is no more hiding as part of your attack action.

Can my ally provide cover so that I may hide behind them?

The answer is now a resounding no. Allies still provide cover from ranged attacks, but the new rules state that you can make a stealth check to hide “only if you have superior cover or total concealment against the enemy or if you’re outside the enemy’s line of sight.”

Since allies do not provide you superior cover or total concealment, nor do they keep you out of an enemy’s line of sight, you cannot hide behind said ally.

Conclusion

I’m glad they updated the rules on stealth. I’m also glad they updated the D&D Compendium with them.

Be Sociable, Share!

Random Posts

Posted in: 4E, RPG

18 Responses to “4E D&D: Revisiting the Stealth Rules”

skade August 4th, 2008 at 1:54 PM

This should never have been as ill written as it was, but these tiny little changes make it somewhat better. I don’t agree that it should be done only after a move action, though. How does this interact with the rules that allow you to trade in types of actions for others, can you move, stealth, trade standard for move and move again? Must you move before you stealth or must you merely use the move action in some way, even discarding it?

Joshua Randall August 4th, 2008 at 1:58 PM

I like these changes. Thanks for blogging about them.

I’ve heard some people complain that without being able to hide behind allies, rogues won’t have enough chances to gain combat advantage (via hiding). Maybe, maybe not.

One thing to point out is that many of the WotC-published 4e adventures, starting with Keep on the Shadowfell, feature combat maps with lots of tables / pillars / entrances in them. I think the idea is that, if all goes well for the rogue, he starts off the combat by attacking from hiding, then on subsequent turns hides beneathe a table / behind a pillar / around a corner and can essentially re-enter the fight in a later round, once again with hiding.

reveal August 4th, 2008 at 3:44 PM

@skade – It says “after a move action,” so I would think you can use it after any move action. So, theoretically, you could move, hide, move again, and hide again, then perform a minor action.

@Joshua – Too true. I’ve found the rogue I’m playing right now can hide behind a lot of things. But it still is up to the DM whether an item gives you just “cover” or “superior cover.” If it doesn’t give you “superior cover,” you can’t hide behind it. It gives some examples in the PHB.

Graham August 4th, 2008 at 10:20 PM

@reveal

True, but many of those things (pillars, etc) will put you out of the enemy’s line of sight.

reveal August 5th, 2008 at 7:21 AM

@Graham – It’s funny because in the PHB, one of the examples of “cover” is a small pillar. I guess they didn’t take being a small character into consideration.

Gabriel August 5th, 2008 at 8:32 AM

I still wonder about the Remaining Hidden section. It says to “Keep Still”, which means not moving more than 2 squares. If you do move more than 2 squares, you have to make another stealth check at a penalty (-5 or -10).

Does that stealth check to remain hidden follow the “Becoming Hidden” rules that call for superior concealment/total cover or the “Keep Out of Sight” rules that call for any level of concealment/cover (except that creatures cannot be used to remain hidden)?

The reason that I ask is that a Warlock can become hidden and then moves 3 or more squares in a round will gain concealment. Will that concealment allow them to stay concealed (assuming, of course, that they make the -5 stealth check at the end of said movement)?

The verbiage for “Keep Still” only calls for a new Stealth check at -5 or -10, but does not specify the degree of cover, which I would take to mean that you should use the “Keep Out of Sight” rules, since you are in the “Remaining Hidden” section. Otherwise, the Warlock’s concealment would never allow them to remain hidden, since it isn’t superior.

Does that sound correct to you?

reveal August 5th, 2008 at 8:59 AM

@Gabriel – The verbiage of the warlock’s power says “On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from where you started your turn, you gain concealment until the end of your next turn.” So they do not gain the concealment until after they move. So, no, they are not hidden while they move, because you don’t make a stealth check until the end of a move action, but don’t have to make a stealth check when they stop because they automatically gain concealment.

Gabriel August 5th, 2008 at 10:11 AM

@reveal – I meant that if the Warlock made a stealth check in the prior round at the end of his movement, would he get another Stealth check the next round if he moved more at least 3 squares? The assumptions are that he a) remains concealed for the movement, since breaking conceal with break stealth, and b) upon reaching the third square of movement, the Warlock’s concealment takes effect immediately (if not, the stealth is automatically broken if the 3rd+ square is not concealed). I do realize that he automatically gains the concealment (giving him defense bonuses), but what if he wants to remain hidded?

My ruling would be yes, because doing so does not undermine the Rogue’s stealthy movement powers (the Warlock still takes movement penalties and the Warlock must remain concealed/covered throughout the entire movement). I see it as the Warlock’s inate magic shrouding him from his target (mist, shadow, mental distraction, etc.). This is what gives them penalties if they try to hit him. Would it also allow him to maintain his stealth?

For example:

Round 1 – Warlock Bob starts his turn behind a wall and rolls a stealth check to hide (I don’t think that you are required to physically move from one square to another in order to initiate a stealth check, only that the stealth check comes after a move action). So, if this is successful, or intrepid Warlock is effectively hidden from the guards.

Round 2 – Warlock Bob decides to work his way closer to the guard, but seeing as the guard is looking in his general direction, Bob will need to remain under some concealment to remain hidden (see “Stay Out of Sight”). Bob moves more than two squares (three to be precise), but is behind some shrubbery for concealment. He finishes his movement out in the open. Since he is a Warlock and has moved at least three squares, he gains concealment. It is now the end of his move…I would rule that he may make a Stealth check at a -5 to remain hidden from the guard.

If you say that the concealment gained from moving 3 or more squares happens AFTER the movement, then he would automatically break stealth once he stepped out from behind the shrubbery. The concealment gained, not being superior, would not grant him a new stealth check. Sure, he would gain a defense bonus against the guard’s attacks, but he would also alert the guard to his presence.

I hope that wasn’t too rambly and cleared up where I’m coming from.

reveal August 5th, 2008 at 12:49 PM

@Gabriel – The warlock has concealment if it moves at least 3 squares. At the end of its move, the warlock should also make a stealth check. If it succeeds, on the next round, the warlock can move up to two squares and still remain hidden; the first two squares are still covered by the stealth check. If it moves only one more squared, it will still be hidden (concealment). If it moves more than that, it is considered not hidden from square three until it stops, at which point it gains concealment again.

Graham August 5th, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Actually, while the Warlock gets concealment, he can only make a Stealth check with total concealment.

So, unfortunately, no Stealth check for the Warlock at all.

Graham August 5th, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Oh, sorry, I missed the initial total concealment.

Ignore my last post.

Mikael August 6th, 2008 at 4:25 AM

Remember that the minimum 3 squares for Shadow Walk is during his whole turn, but the maximum 2 squares for Keep Still is per action.
So if the warlock dashes behind a corner 3 squares away and successfully hides, he now has concealment from his Shadow Walk and can walk back into the open without the need for further Stealth checks as long as he only moves 2 squares per move action and does a double move every turn.
Neat!

Joshua Randall August 6th, 2008 at 10:00 AM

If WotC didn’t have such an aversion to giving examples of the rules at work, they could give an example of how Stealth is supposed to work.

I think I know why they shy away from examples, though: it’s too easy to get them wrong. Especially when the underlying rules keep getting changed.

I have to admit, though, that none of my players ever attempt to gain stealth during combat. Before combat? Yes. During exploration? Yes. But not during combat.

reveal August 6th, 2008 at 11:57 AM

@Joshua – I’m the only player at the table who does right now. I’m playing the rogue and, in combat, I like to throw shurikens since, as a rogue, I do just as much damage in combat as with a short sword. It’s nice because I don’t have to be in the thick of combat in 4E, like you had to as a rogue in 3E, in order to do sneak attack damage. In 3E, your options to sneak attack were either flanking or trying to make some gawd-awful high DC hide check. It’s a lot easier now to hide, so not every rogue has to be an up front rogue to do sneak attack damage.

CajunAzn January 30th, 2010 at 2:45 PM

“Since allies do not provide you superior cover or total concealment, nor do they keep you out of an enemy’s line of sight, you cannot hide behind said ally.”

Where in the rules does it say this?

CajunAzn January 30th, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Just to clarify I am not disputing your conclusuion just the assumption that “allies do not provide you superior cover”

In the PHB pg280: “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 an enemy’s square.) If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover.”

It is concievable that an enemies could provide superior cover for your target:

xxxTx T=Target
xxExx E=Enemy
xxExx E=Enemy
xYxxx Y=You

As you can see, any corner that you pick on your square will intersect with an enemy before reaching a corner of the target square. By definition, the target T has superior cover.

It is assumed that the reverse situation would apply if the enemies were changed to allies:

xxxTx
xxAxx A=allies
xxAxx
xYxxx

In this case you would have superior cover from the target. In that case, by the rules, you would be able to make stealth check (even without concealment).

However to move out of the that position, you would need to remain concealed in each square the target has line of sight to. This could be accomplished, by having activated Shadow Walk on the previous turn (which would carry over into this turn).

darg May 21st, 2010 at 5:44 AM

guys, thanx much for clarifying all this stealth stuff, but there is still one thing i don’t get. It’s about the combat advantage and the rogue’s sneak attack (well, why else would you try to hide anyway? ^-^). The question is ‘Do you need to make a stealth check to gain combat advantage when you have total concealment?’ One of the conditions granting you combat advantage is when the target can’t see the attacker. But the PHB says that total concealment means exactly that you can’t see the target. In short: You are in total concealment => You can’t be seen => You have combat advantage. So you actually don’t need to make a stealth check to make a sneak attack. Am I right or is there something i missed?

Nel October 21st, 2011 at 10:17 AM

You are right and just a bit confused.

When you pop out from hiding and shoot a target, you gain combat advantage, assuming the target didn’t already know you were there or take an action to wait for you to pop up.

However, try doing that in melee.

In these cases, use common sense. A peekaboo attack can gain combat advantage without a stealth check, yes.. however, they can also perceive you before you make the attack (just because they can’t see all of you doesn’t mean they don’t know you’re there), thus removing combat advantage. Stealthing just makes it much harder by tiptoeing around and being hard to detect.