PDA

View Full Version : Stealth in 4e FG2 games



DNH
October 27th, 2010, 12:17
How are people handling Stealth in 4e FG2 games? I can see several ways of doing it and am not sure if any one is better than another. I also imagine there might be a better way I haven't thought of, or even a "ruleset way" I don't know about.

For example, suppose a rogue wants to acquire stealth. He steps behind a wall that grants him total concealment from his six goblin foes and I have him roll a Stealth check. I then have to make passive Perception checks for each individual goblin to see if they lose track of him or not (not too onerous for just six goblins, but what about bigger fights?). If they do lose track of him, I then need to note that somehow (as an effect on the CT, probably - "Cannot see rogue" or similar). In addition, the rogue needs to note his Stealth check result (again, as an effect on the CT - "Stealth (18)" or something) in case any of the goblins actively seek him out.

All this takes time, especially when you consider that you could potentially be doing this every round.

Any thoughts?

Sorcerer
October 27th, 2010, 13:03
Well I don't play 4E so I can't comment on the ruleset,
but I always try to keep things simple - even if that is in open defiance of the rules and at the expense of some realism.

If the rogue makes his stealth check
(which he should make in ‘the box’, because he should not know if he has failed until someone sticks a sword in him)
I would then make only a single roll for the monsters as a group, using the one with the best perception - I justify that by saying if he spots the rogue he will not be long in telling his companions about it. “he’s over there!”

I would then drag an effect 'Stealthed' from my effects window which is set for infinite duration. I would then once again only make a single perception roll every round until either the rogue breaks stealth or the monsters spot him.

Making hundreds of rolls a round just slows things down and breaks the excitement and tension of the moment.
This is particularly true of the FG format since it is by nature slower than face to face gaming.

Fot5
October 27th, 2010, 16:34
I agree about using a single roll for monster checks per round. I recently read in one of the source books (can't remember which) a suggestion of making the opposed check once per type of monster (e.g., six goblins and one hobgoblin would be two rolls) rather than one per monster. Alternatively, you could just choose the monster with the highest perception.

However, according to the 4e rules, stealth checks are against passive perception (see compendium entry below for stealth). Hence, you only need to make a stealth roll for each creature attempting to remain hidden (not for those who they are hiding from).


Opposed Check: Stealth vs. passive Perception. If multiple enemies are present, your Stealth check is opposed by each enemy’s passive Perception check. If you move more than 2 squares during the move action, you take a –5 penalty to the Stealth check. If you run, the penalty is –10.

If you download and use the Partysheet availabe at DrZeuss' website (http://zgp.eugenez.net/), you can make stealth checks for the party (versus a DC, which would be the passive perception of the monsters) with a single mouse click. This is one of the most useful extensions for the 4e ruleset I've found.

About keeping track, I would just add an effect to the CT labeled "Hidden", and turn it on or off, depending on the rogue's status during a particular round.

Zeus
October 27th, 2010, 20:51
However, according to the 4e rules, stealth checks are against passive perception (see compendium entry below for stealth). Hence, you only need to make a stealth roll for each creature attempting to remain hidden (not for those who they are hiding from).


Opposed Check: Stealth vs. passive Perception. If multiple enemies are present, your Stealth check is opposed by each enemy’s passive Perception check. If you move more than 2 squares during the move action, you take a –5 penalty to the Stealth check. If you run, the penalty is –10.


I agree with Fot5, this is the interpretation of the rules my groups follow.

For the most part Opposed Checks and Skill Checks vs DC were the main drivers for writing the PartySheet extension.

Thanks for the nice comments Fot5, much appreciated. I'm glad you find the extension useful.

DNH
October 28th, 2010, 13:13
Thanks for these comments. My problems arise from a (recent) realisation that Stealth is not a blanket condition and that things can get complicated pretty quickly. I suppose I am looking for an easy way to handle all eventualities.

A simple solution, then, is for the rogue to make a Stealth check against the best passive Perception of his enemies. If he makes that, I give him some sort of "Stealthed" effect and he reaps all the benefits of that. As long as he Remains Hidden, I need do nothing more (although we do need to note the result of the check, in case anyone actively looks for him).

But that won't work in all cases; there may well be some situations where the rogue cannot possibly acquire stealth against all enemies. Imagine an encounter where the rogue finds himself in the middle of some castle ruins. He ducks down below a low wall and obtains total concealment against most of his enemies but there are more on his side of the wall who can see him as plain as day.

I don't want to get into a discussion of the 4e rules; I am happy enough with them (the excellent Rules Compendium makes them very clear). But I do wonder at the best way of recording things in FG2. What about third-party effect targetting?

Moon Wizard
October 28th, 2010, 16:46
You could use the third party effect targeting to track the information on who the character is Stealthed from, if you wanted. It would just be extra book keeping in the CT.

Given that most Stealthed characters are not attackable directly by characters who can't see them and there is usually only one character who is really using this mechanic, I think most people just wing it. The only time I can see it being necessary to document is if you have an encounter that spans multiple sessions. That's what I do in my game anyway.

Cheers,
JPG

DNH
November 3rd, 2010, 13:06
Okay, this came up again last night and ... I winged it! I mean, there were a couple of times (a couple of Stealth rolls) where it actually made a difference, where some of the NPCs could see the rogue but others could not. But it was a fairly small encounter and so it wasn't a problem just to wing it and remember (or check) who was who.

For the record, I gave the rogue an effect something like 'CA; DMG: +2d6' and turned it on and off based on who he was attacking.

miniwheat
November 6th, 2010, 14:02
I would compare the Stealth check vs. all the enemies passive perception. Any enemy that beats his check suffer no penalty to attack the Stealther.

For the enemies that failed the opposed check I would have the Stealther target all of them and shift + drag the effect: "ATK: -5; ATK: 5 close; ATK: 5 area; GRANTCA" to himself. To work correctly the toggles should be set to "target" and "all" and probably end start.

This would grant the Stealther CA against all those that failed and impose a -5 attack penalty when the Stealther is the target of their attacks unless they use area or burst attacks on the Stealther.

Hope this helps you a bit...