Community

DogSquat wrote:

I have been going in circles around the shadow walk + stealth thing. ...I'm going to remove the "beat by 10" in favor of a straight up check of perception versus stealth.

A resolution that connects the dots without contradicting RAW or CSRs is that the initial Stealth check is oppposed by passive Perception, and if beaten never takes you to the TWYCS rules. If the passive Perception is beaten, then you do go to the TWYCS rules, but a standard action active Perception still ignores the -10 effective, since RAW ties that requirement to minor action active Perception.

I do then flagrantly ignore RAW and forget that any further checks against passive Perception are at the -10 effective. Those only occur due to OAs or IR. An OA breaks Stealth anyhow, so only an IR that was not an attack could possibly worry you here. Seems rare enough not to warrant a separate case.

DogSquat wrote:

If the attacker attacks the inferred square they may or may not hit the target (I'm not sure if there should be a -2 or -5 penalty to the attack roll if the target is in fact in the square).

If it's the inferred square, that implies the TWYCS rules applied, which means the initial check beat passive Perception. Ergo use -5.

DogSquat wrote:

If the attacker's perception beats the SSW's stealth then he knows the square that the SSW is in. If the attacker attacks the square he is at a -2 (due to concealment) to hit the SSW.

If the Stealth number was beaten by less than 10, then -2 only applies if it was a standard action active check or if that was the initial Stealth roll failing to beat passive. Otherwise the -5 applies.

DogSquat wrote:

However, he cannot use powers that specifically call out the SSW (at this point I'm thinking of challenges like combat challenge or divine challenge) but may use attack powers normally.

Divine Challenge is a burst and therefore less affected by Stealth. Combat Challenge requires an attack to hit or miss: since the TWYCS rules instruct you to 'automatically miss' if you pick the wrong square, you literally get a miss even if you have no idea where your target is!

Both powers therefore work fine against hiders.

-vk

wyndskar wrote:

so i guess my question is really about how to handle the bad guys trying to find and RETURN fire on a sniper...

(btw, the reson why i would be multi classing in thief is to get the utlity powers like Fleeting Ghost, Chameleon, and Shadow Stride).

The Rogue utility powers are excellent for what you want IMO, but you will also want to be very strong at Stealth. If you Skill Focus it, I expect you'll force the bad-guys to use the Targeting What You Can't See rules on PHB281 most of the time, meaning they'll never know your exact square. You'll take your turns as Attack-Move-Hide.

Your build therefore raises questions a lot of DMs are going to have to answer in the coming months, so it's great to look at in detail. I'm going to go-ahead and assume your DM wants to make the game fun for you and your buddies, so that means he'll throw you some curve balls.

Those might look like this...

1) Minions. These guys are great for sweeping an area. Who really cares if what they find kills them? They work together for +8 and take standard actions to make one throw a turn. By RAW they could spend a minor action on an active check against DC10 to help each other, and then a standard action on the finding; and then they move in a spread likely to break cover and penetrate concealment. On spotting they move directly toward the hider.

2) Area attacks. If the guy is 'over there somewhere' throw in a grenade.

3) Spotters. Single skirmishers or elites with very high Perception. Until you drop this guy you can forget about being hidden.

4) Counter-sniping. Single artillery or elites with very high Stealth. Their job is keeping you entertained.

5) Trappers. Single brutes with very high Stealth. Their job is to find you and bag you using grabs and restraints.

6) Closing down angles. Simply dragging the fight to positions where you can't find cover or concealment.

7) Prepared terrain. If there's cover overlooking a critical position, why aren't we all over that? Remember, the party is usually going to the bad-guys, not vice versa.

8) Zero Cover or Concealment. The bad-guys set up the fight to be well lit on cleared ground.

The only downside of all this is that you'll need to agree a fast way with your DM to pick squares when you as player or DM has more information than you as PC or bad-guy. Since you know you need to pick 2 or more squares, I'd suggest picking either 3 or 4 squares and using either a d6 or a d10. Make sure that one of the picked squares includes the target, and then choose one square to be least likely (1), one second least likely (2-3), one third least likely (4-6), and one most likely (7-10). Then roll.

-vk

DogSquat wrote:

...it would seem a fighter can mark any target in the world using the general thought process of all other worldly targets are merely under total cover by the curvature of the world (i.e. just let me know when the target attempts a stealth check and I'll compare to my passive perception and then see if we fall into TWYCS; I'm guaranteed a miss but also a mark).

Well, cautious as I am about derailing this thread into a marking discussion, it seems like for an attack to hit or miss it must first be made. No attack can be made against anything falling outside its range.

Then, even taking the fluff in quite a superficial way, one might observe that being hidden does not prevent one from hearing or seeing.

PC: My fighter thrusts his groin forward aggressively and shouts 'Ho, foul beasty, you are marked!'
DM: You're facing the wrong way (sotto voce, Thank God), but fear not that his gaze is drawn inevitably toward the towering protuberance that is... your Black Russian!'


-vk

Does it fly to say that a standard action active Perception check would not need to beat Stealth by +10 to know the square?

This was suggested by Kitsune on Enworld.

It wouldn't IMO unless that standard action did something to remove whatever greater effect is keeping the stealther from being seen.

Examples
An elf is INVISIBLE (magic effect) and decides to stealth.

An elf has run down a 'T' intersection and turned either left or right (you didn't see it). Your move isn't sufficient to get to the intersection and you fear he might turn some corner and you will lose him forever, you make your check. Beating his stealth (if he's doing it) would let you know he turned to the right, and beating it by 10 would let you know he's about 20' down.

You are blind, and a mountain lion is pacing around you. It's trying to pace around to your back, but you want to keep your shield between you and it, hoping the mud clears from your eyes fast... (this is pretty much an RP event, a tension builder. Cats like to attack from the rear, but game mechanics wise there is no difference)

In all these cases something other then stealth is keeping the target from being seen. Invisibility, blindness, walls, total cover/total concealment of some sort. Beating stealth = knowing direction, and beating it by 10 lets you know his square. If you can negate that effect some way (dispel the magic, moving behind the walls, clear your eyes) then the stealther loses that +10 bonus all together.

Most cases of stealth on the battlefield won't deal with the +10 modifier at all. To see if the +10 modifier applies, remove stealth from the situation completely, and ask, can the opponent be seen? If not, then apply it.

It is also specific to the Perciever. A blind party member might receive it, while another does not.

wrote:

vk]Does it fly to say that a standard action active Perception check would not need to beat Stealth by +10 to know the square?

This was suggested by Kitsune on Enworld.

It wouldn't IMO unless that standard action did something to remove whatever greater effect is keeping the stealther from being seen.

I just read Kitsune's post, and never noticed the difference between the standard action and the minor action Perception check. I'll look more into wrote: