Stealth: There are two levels of "hidden", not one

[Paul Strack]

You're entirely correct, and I'm not disputing that this is how it would work. I'm just saying that trying to codify it into two "levels" of Stealth and assigning requirements and rules to each one is about ten times more complex than stealth needs to be. If you're hidden from someone, that someone has to guess what square you're in to hit you. If someone else tells him what square you're in, his guess is pretty much guaranteed to be right--but he still can't see you, and so you still have CA against him and he still takes penalties to hit you. That's all you need.

All right, since you seem to have accepted that, let me ask the following question:

1) Do you need cover or concealment from all enemies in order to be able to hide?

My answer differs depending on the level of benefits you wanted to get.

To gain TWYCS, I would say yes, you need cover or concealment against every enemy, otherwise the one against which you are not concealed can reveal your location as a free action.

To gain a Combat Advantage, I would say no, you only need cover or concealment against the target of your attack.

I think both answers agree with the RAW.

If you accept that, it gives you many situations where you can get a combat advantage without getting TWYCS, and it may be worth discussing whether there are other conditions that grant combat advantage but not TWYCS.

 

[Kordeth]

All right, since you seem to have accepted that, let me ask the following question:

1) Do you need cover or concealment from all enemies in order to be able to hide?

No, but you'll only be hidden from the ones you have cover/concealment from, obviously.

My answer differs depending on the level of benefits you wanted to get.

To gain TWYCS, I would say yes, you need cover or concealment against every enemy, otherwise the one against which you are not concealed can reveal your location as a free action.

To gain a Combat Advantage, I would say no, you only need cover or concealment against the target of your attack.

I think both answers agree with the RAW.

If you accept that, it gives you many situations where you can get a combat advantage without getting TWYCS, and it may be worth discussing whether there are other conditions that grant combat advantage but not TWYCS.

This is where you're getting too complex. There is no such thing as "gaining TWYCS," or as losing it. An enemy you are hidden from cannot see you and thus is always "targeting what he cannot see." The fact that another character can say "hey, he's right there, shoot that square" doesn't change that fact. Thus there's no need for breaking Stealth down into complex multiple types with rules and conditions.

Being hidden always conveys the following advantages: CA against enemies that you successfully hid from, and anyone you hid from can't see you. The fact that other people might be able to see you and direct allies toward a square (although unless you happen to be standing by an easily identifiable landmark, I think the best an enemy could do is provide distance and general direction) doesn't change any of that.

To use a real-world example, if you're on The Price Is Right and Bob Barker asks you to guess the price of a camcorder, you don't know the price of that camcorder. If a friend in the audience shouts "it's $500! Say $500!" that doesn't change the fact that you're guessing the price. Your guess might be more correct than it otherwise would have been thanks to your buddy's help, but it's still a guess.

 

[Felon]

Stealth is one of those areas where I wish WotC had actually paid more attention to video games. The designers of stealth games like Assassin's Creed, Thief, and Tenchu Z figured out that you cannot treat stealth as a binary pass/fail scenario. There needs to be a buffer between oblivious and full alert where someone's "cautious" or "suspicious". This gives you the tension of impending failure and the possibility to recover from a bad move.

 

[Paul Strack]

This is where you're getting too complex. There is no such thing as "gaining TWYCS," or as losing it.

I admit that I worded this poorly. I should have said something like "benefit from TWYCS".

An enemy you are hidden from cannot see you and thus is always "targeting what he cannot see." The fact that another character can say "hey, he's right there, shoot that square" doesn't change that fact. Thus there's no need for breaking Stealth down into complex multiple types with rules and conditions.

I agree that it makes things more complex. Given that a lot of people disagree vigorously on how to rule on Stealth, I think some sort of compromise position is needed. Splitting the Stealth benefits into two tiers gives you the room you need for compromises.

Being hidden always conveys the following advantages: CA against enemies that you successfully hid from, and anyone you hid from can't see you. The fact that other people might be able to see you and direct allies toward a square doesn't change any of that.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. There are circumstances in which you can have CA but cannot benefit from TWYCS because your position is known. So there are circumstances when you get CA but cannot benefit from TWYCS. Since you can't benefit from it, that rule effectively doesn't apply.

(although unless you happen to be standing by an easily identifiable landmark, I think the best an enemy could do is provide distance and general direction)

This is a legitimate argument. If you maintain that position, I can't dispute it; there is nothing in the RAW to contradict you. The only counter-argument I can make (a) there is nothing in the RAW to contradict my position either and (b) it would be incredibly difficult to adjudicate your position in play, especially if the "hidden" character's miniature is on the board.

To use a real-world example, if you're on The Price Is Right and Bob Barker asks you to guess the price of a camcorder, you don't know the price of that camcorder. If a friend in the audience shouts "it's $500! Say $500!" that doesn't change the fact that you're guessing the price. Your guess might be more correct than it otherwise would have been thanks to your buddy's help, but it's still a guess.

That's not an accurate analogy, because in your example, neither you nor your friend know the actual price. The price is hidden from both of you, so his guess is no better than yours.

A better analogy would be one where your friend is standing on the stage behind Bob Barker saying "Dude, I can read his card, it says $495!" He isn't guessing, because the price is not hidden from him.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Thus there's no need for breaking Stealth down into complex multiple types with rules and conditions.

There's nothing complex about it really, he is just saying that there is a difference between stealthing when someone knows where you are and stealthing when they don't.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. There are circumstances in which you can have CA but cannot benefit from TWYCS because your position is known. So there are circumstances when you get CA but cannot benefit from TWYCS. Since you can't benefit from it, that rule effectively doesn't apply.

An example of lesser hidden is an Eladrin Rogue dancing around a Human Fighter in the dim moonlight using stealth. The fighter knows what square the Eladrin is in and only suffers a -2 from normal concealment. However, the fighter strains to see the features on the Eladrin, and can't tell exactly what is a feint, slash or dodge, nor can he perfectly tell the difference between a glinting piece of armor or the point of a dagger, hence granting combat advantage. The Eladrin Rogue, assuming a successful Stealth check, is lesser hidden.

Without Total Cover or Total Concealment, the Eladrin cannot gain Greater Stealth in combat, which given those conditions would mean the Eladrin is hidden and the Human does not know what square his opponent is in.

Personally I find the distinction more simple than the wad of rules underneath "Stealth" in the PHB.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

I'd say this belongs in the House Rule section. It might work for you and your table, but it is exactly contradicted by the Official FAQ:

This.

 

[Feylock]

So according to your brilliand idea about stealth, the only thing stealth actually grants you is Combat Advantage ?

Your logic is flawed. Stelath skill description suggests otherwise. You better read it once more.

Besides, think this: I try to sneak into some building past the guards using trees, bushes etc that give me cover to hide and move through. According to your logic I can NOT stealth through, as the guards can see me regardless of my stealth check.
My only chance would be to move from another direction, or climb the backwall or something, but for that I dont really need a stealth check as I already have total cover and the guards can not see me.

 

[the_redbeard]

So according to your brilliand idea about stealth, the only thing stealth actually grants you is Combat Advantage ?

Your logic is flawed. Stelath skill description suggests otherwise. You better read it once more.

Besides, think this: I try to sneak into some building past the guards using trees, bushes etc that give me cover to hide and move through. According to your logic I can NOT stealth through, as the guards can see me regardless of my stealth check.
My only chance would be to move from another direction, or climb the backwall or something, but for that I dont really need a stealth check as I already have total cover and the guards can not see me.

Yep.

Here's an example to help others understand using the TWYCS rules. Consider an archer firing arrows from a castle wall parapet. The parapet is cover - not total cover, just cover. The archer ducks beneath the parapet. He is unseen and can't be targeted directly. People attacking him must use the TWYCS rules. If they pick the right square, their attack is at -5.
Stealth is similar. There's something that could be taken advantage of - dim light, a pillar, that obscures but doesn't completely block attacks. Successfully stealthing is finding a way to hide yourself within that partial blocking. If you know or can easily guess the exact square, you still get an attack, or use an area attack with no penalty.

 

[Shabe]

Well thats almost how i see the rules, i just think that if you have total concealment / cover when you stealth it grants you "greater hidden" until you lose hidden status via any method the rules state. This allows you to hide round a corner, then sneak behind the barrels up to the guards and stab them, without also allowing you to hide behind a row of slender pillars and saying you don't know where I am now. It was based on someones reasoning of the RAW on this board who i can't quite remember now.

Alert - If a monster has seen you he is alert to your presence.

Stealth - You may stealth (Stealth Check) as part of any action with a -5 penalty if you have moved more than 2 squares that round. If you beat all enemies' passive perception that have line of sight to you AND you have cover, concealment or have made a distraction (via bluff) then you obtain hidden status.
If you have total concealment or total cover, then in addition the enemy is not alert to your presence.

Hidden -
If the enemy is not alerted to you - treat as twycs and grants combat advantage.
If the enemy is alerted to your presence - grants you combat advantage.
You may only be hidden if you have concealment, cover or have provided a distraction this round (via bluff).
You lose hidden status if you attack, carry a light source, shout or any other action the dm judges will give you away.

 

[Paul Strack]

So according to your brilliand idea about stealth, the only thing stealth actually grants you is Combat Advantage ?

Your logic is flawed. Stelath skill description suggests otherwise. You better read it once more.

That isn't the argument I am making. The argument I am making is that *sometimes* Stealth grants you only a Combat Advantage, and other times it grants you both a Combat Advantage and protection from attacks via TWYCS.

My argument is based, not on the Stealth rules, but on the TWYCS rules. In particular, the fact that the TWYCS rules only provide a mechanical benefit if your location is not known.

Besides, think this: I try to sneak into some building past the guards using trees, bushes etc that give me cover to hide and move through. According to your logic I can NOT stealth through, as the guards can see me regardless of my stealth check.

My only chance would be to move from another direction, or climb the backwall or something, but for that I dont really need a stealth check as I already have total cover and the guards can not see me.

That's not my core scenario. I regret, now, putting the Total Concealment vs Concealment question into my original post, because it is definitely muddying the waters.

Consider this case: your rogue is sneaking along a line of bushes to get close to one group of guards. But there is another guard on the same side of the bushes as the rogue who can clearly see the rogue.

My argument is, in this case, the rogue is not protected by TWYCS because the guard with a clear LOS can just point his position out to his friend. However, the rogue can still get a combat advantage against the guards that can't see him.

If that scenario bothers you, reverse it and make it a group of PCs versus a sneaking monster. Say a goblin is "sneaking" up on the PCs in clear view of one of them but hidden behind cover from the rest. Why can't the PC with a clear view point out where the goblin is, eliminating the benefits of TWYCS?