Community

MorrisonMP wrote:

Yay.

Stealth is the new grappling!

Hate.

Maaaaybe... except that it's pretty easy for the DM to "cut the crap" and just run Stealth RAI.

1) A successful Stealth gives you CA and puts you under the "Attacking what you can't see" rules (PHB FAQ)

2) You need to have Concealment or Cover from your target to remain hidden. (PHB 188)

3) You are no longer Hidden after you attack (PHB 188)

Now comes the RAI

4) Allies don't give you sufficient Cover to Hide. That's just silly and really hard to keep track of, since your "Cover" is highly mobile.

It's how I'm playing, since it requires the Rogue to keep aware of his terrain, it prevents the Archery Rogue from riding the "Tank" to perpetual Sneak Attacks, and it prevents the monsters from using similar tactics!

Tsuul wrote:

I still haven't looked into the difference between standard and minor action active Perception checks that Kitsune brought up. But I wonder if there is something going on there that I'm missing still.
Step 1. Make a standard active perception check
Step 2. ?
Step 3. Profit

When the TWYCS rules apply, I was uncertain how to deal with the difference between a minor action perception check versus a standard action perception check wrt stealth. Initially, I felt that a standard action is inherently more valuable than a minor action and should yield bonuses to the roll. However, when I think about it more I'm inclined to rule them as the same wrt all bonuses/penalties. I'm basing this on the fact that a perceiver can, on her turn, roll two attempts to spot a stealthed creature when that creature only has the benefit of a single stealth roll. In essence the perceiver gets three chances (one passive, two active) to avoid the CA from a stealthed creature (of course winning the passive test is much better for the perceiver). As I see it a perceiver would usually opt to spend a minor action to spot first. If she failed to ascertain where the creature is she would then have to make a tough decision. Should she go ahead and use the standard action for another chance to look around or use it for an attack.

To sum up, another chance to spot is in itself the bonus.

vonklaude wrote:

<...> I asked

sblocked for space Show

A PC in concealment) makes a Stealth check of 20 beating an enemy's passive Perception of 19. Now that they've beaten that enemy's passive Perception, does that enemy have to roll a 30 on an active check to know what square they are in, now that they come under the rules on PHB281?

If the PC had rolled a 19 instead, not beating that enemy's passive Perception, would that enemy have somehow really needed a 29 to know what square they are in? Or is a 19 good enough in this case? Does it change only on a failed initial roll?

and received

1. Correct. You we need to roll a 30 to know what square they were in.

2. If the player rolled a 19, and did not beat the enemy's passive perception, that enemy would know where the player is.<...>

vs.

nimrand wrote:

Question:
Spoiler: Show

I some questions about the new FAQ posting on Stealth.

Assume that a creature has cover or concealment, but not Total Concealment or Superior Cover. Assume that another creature makes a minor perception check against the hidden creature.

People have taken two interpretations of applying the "targeting what you can't see" sidebar on page 281.

Some apply only what is written directly in that sidebar, meaning the creature must beat the Stealth score by ten points to pinpoint the hidden creature's location, and even then get a -5 penalty to attack.

Others believe that the requirement to beat the Stealth check by ten points and the -5 penalty to attack even after a successful Stealth check is only in situations where the creature is both hidden and Totally Concealed (since both of these rules would be inferred from the rules for Stealth and Total Concealment, and the sidebar seems to assume that the hidden creature has Total Concealment). In that case that the creature is not Totally Concealed, only the Stealth check itself must be beaten, and, if beaten, the hidden creature is revealed and there is no penalty to attack it beyond whatever cover or concealment it has.

Can you shed some light on this? Specifically, if the hidden creature doesn't have Total Concealment, does one's active perception check have to beat a hidden creature's Stealth check by 10 points to pinpoint its location? And, if the Stealth check is beaten, is the creature still hidden and does the -5 penalty still apply?

On a related note, does the -5 penalty stack with cover and concealment penalties the creature would have even if it were not hidden?


Answer:

Thank you for contacting us. The Targeting What you Can't See side bar on page 281 only applies to creatures you physically can't see, either because the creature is invisible, your blinded, or your fighting in darkness you can't see through. If the creature is not invisible, and your vision is not impeded by blindness or impenetrable darkness, and it just has normal cover or normal concealment. You only have to beat the creatures stealth check itself. You would not have to beat the stealth check by 10. If you beat the stealth check, then you can see the creature and attack it. You would just be subject to the normal penalties to attack vs. Cover (-2) or Concealment (-2).

As per the description of penalties on page 275, Penalties add together unless they are from the same power. So if a creature had Cover (-2) and Concealment (-2) the total penalty to attack would be (-4).
This question was asked and answered on 7/12/2008.

Two opposing CSR responses cancel each other out.

DogSquat wrote:

The text in the TWYCS rules assumes that some effect is negating a perceiver's ability to sense the stealther. Or at least perceive the stealther using his most common sense. For purposes of our discussion I've assumed that this is sight. I surmise that this is not the case for stealth induced checks due solely to cover or concealment. The perceiver can in fact see the stealther if the cover or concealment were not present. My assumption is that the "beat by 10" clause in TWYCS is due to the fact that irregardless of cover or concealment the perceiver couldn't see the stealther. So what I have is some gray area where I want to use the TWYCS rules but I don't want to move stealth into the realm of invisibility and all of this is somehow ultimately related to the concept of targeting. And targeting runs me into the domain of power usage. Some powers need a seeable target and some powers don't. The powers that do need a seeable target have a "that you can see" clause somewhere in them (I also feel that some other powers also require a seeable target based on their usage).

Yes. How do we pull apart the TWYCS rules with any sense of justice? If some parts disapply, why not others, since the whole block starts by specifically references blindness, invisibility, and darkness.

Some would say drop the +10 to find exact square, in which case any successful check finds the exact square and we should also drop the -5 since that too arises from that impedes vision completely.

I'll make trial changes to my OP. Let me know what you think?

-vk