Stealth - back to RAW. PEACH

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

I do agree with the point you make, but we may have to agree to disagree about the conclusion that implies.

That one place where the DM's part in skill resolution is specifically defined, PHB178 overrules the generality of the DMs administration of all game rules. It places an additional burden on the DM relating to skill checks.

That's why it's there. Were it not a specific case, there would be no reason to add to the general ruling under the Core Mechanic heading on PHB11.

That's how I read it.

-vk

So, you're saying the specific rule on skills trumps a generality on the DMs administration of all game rules. But, a specific rule on a specific skill doesn't trump a general rule on skills... That's not an agree to disagree thing. By your own logic, you're wrong.

 

[clearstream]

So, you're saying the specific rule on skills trumps a generality on the DMs administration of all game rules. But, a specific rule on a specific skill doesn't trump a general rule on skills... That's not an agree to disagree thing. By your own logic, you're wrong.

By my logic I'm right, but let's take a look at it.

I think you might be referring to the stealth rules section of skills, but tell me if I'm wrong about that? The second line of that section tells your DM that they can set a DC instead of using a creature's Perception check. There is no other wording more specific in the stealth rules section about your DMs role. The question then is does that line overrule the line on PHB178? No: it does not, and neither does mirror wording on PHB186.

Stealth uses cover or concealment. DMG43 tells your DM that they decide if cover is allowed or not. That buttresses, and does not overrule PHB178.

And so on. There are no rulings more specific about your DMs role in telling you if a given situation is appropriate than the wording on PHB178. Nothing overwrites that rule. It was confirmed earlier in a CSR that even given cover or concealment a DM acting out RAW could disallow a check.

Despite that, you might like to argue that every rule that speaks of making a skill check overwrites the PHB178 wording. If you decide that, it becomes puzzling why that wording exists at all, since it would have no meaning.

-vk

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

By my logic I'm right, but let's take a look at it.

I think you might be referring to the stealth rules section of skills, but tell me if I'm wrong about that? The second line of that section tells your DM that they can set a DC instead of using a creature's Perception check. There is no other wording more specific in the stealth rules section about your DMs role. The question then is does that line overrule the line on PHB178? No: it does not, and neither does mirror wording on PHB186.

You're claiming this is a RAW thread. Selectively applying RAW such as specific -> general because you don't think something can be repeated to clearly describe how something works (or because you're cherry picking words and phrases to support what you want it to say rather than what it says) isn't RAW.

The DMs role is to determine whether a check is necessary or allowed, the rules that follow provide the rules he uses to determine whether a check necessary or allowed. Example: "Unless a creature is distracted, you must have cover or concealment to make a stealth check." The DM decides whether the situation is correct - and there are rules for determining if a creature is distracted by a player action or if a player has cover or concealment. Or the DM can decide that nothing in any encounter map provides concealment, or he can make every NPC always alert out of combat. If you want to reduce the use of stealth, there are plenty of legitimate ways to it it by using the rules as written to abuse a player, there is really no need to take a sentence out of context to justify arbitrarily not allowing a player to use a skill on DM whim.

Stealth uses cover or concealment. DMG43 tells your DM that they decide if cover is allowed or not. That buttresses, and does not overrule PHB178.

That is another general rule, not a more specific rule. A general rule on cover and a general rule on skill use wouldn't overwrite each other. A specific rule on a specific skill would overrule a general rule on skill use.

DMG 43 tells your DM they decide whether cover exists, not if it is allowed. It isn't something the DM grants like a favor. It is an explanation of the environment.

And so on. There are no rulings more specific about your DMs role in telling you if a given situation is appropriate than the wording on PHB178. Nothing overwrites that rule. It was confirmed earlier in a CSR that in fact even given cover or concealment a DM acting out RAW could disallow a check.

Strawman - I've never said you can't be disallowed a check when you have cover or concealment. You can quite specifically be denied a check within the Stealth description: "Observers automatically see you if you're carrying a light source."

Ignoring all the rules for determining whether a check is appropriate or necessary and ruling arbitrarily isn't the meaning of page 178.

Despite that, you might like to argue that every rule that speaks of making a skill check in fact overwrites the PHB178 wording. If you decide that, it becomes puzzling why that wording exists at all, since it would have no meaning.

-vk

The wording has meaning regardless. Other wording on PHB178 is repeated as well, you even referred to it.

The second line of that section tells your DM that they can set a DC instead of using a creature's Perception check.

"The DC is determined by what you're trying to accomplish and is ultimately set by the dungeonmaster." PHB178

PHB178 also includes this: "All DCs assume acting in situations that are far from mundane; the DM should call for checks only in dramatic situations."

That places limitations on:

"The DM tells you if a skill chaek is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstances call for one." PHB178

If you really want to twist something why not go for the big one:

"The DM decides whether something you try actually works." PHB10

 

[Paul Strack]

PHB267 reads that free actions can be done on other combatant's turns.

I stand corrected.

You can say that, and with some justice, but take a look how an opposed check is defined in RAW (PHB25). 'Occasionally you make a check that is compared against someone else's check result. Doing this is called making an opposed check.' The context sets that in contrast to checks against static defences. My error with this ruling is to suggest it uses free actions. RAW doesn't tell you it should cost your enemies any action.

The rules on PHB25 only talk about check results, not rolls. It only indicates you are comparing one result to another, not one roll to another.

On PH179, the rules state that the result of a passive check comes from taking 10 (10 + skill). So, passive checks have a result, just like an active check. This means that an opposed check can be between two active checks, an active check and a passive check or (in theory) between two passive checks (possible but boring).

Furthermore, PH179 states that you make a passive check if you are not actively using the skill. My interpretation of this is that you make a passive check whenever it is not your action. I also interpret this to mean that if it is your action, you always make an active check.

So, if I am hiding from you on my turn, I make an active Stealth check against your passive Perception check. If you are trying to spot me on your turn, you make an active Perception check against my passive Stealth check.

The reading I am making flows from taking the first line of the Stealth block on PHB188 as the most important reference wording for the intent of stealth use. As the_redbeard points out, I'm not then allowing other pieces of RAW to intrude on that intent unless they contain instructive wording connecting them to the process, e.g. do this, this means, then go to, etc. Language contained in the Stealth block itself I read as instructive; and the same for jargon definitions that must unavoidably be referred to.

I'm doing this because I believe Stealth needs to either apply just to the action it is part of, or to create a condition under which actions occur, but not both. Trying to do both is a major source of contention and confusion, as well as creating contradictory readings of RAW.

I understand where you are trying to go with this. Make stealth apply only to the current action fixes a bunch of problems, especially when for stealth during free actions.

Unfortunately, I think this interpretation fails the common-sense test in a big way. It means you are hidden while you are moving, but as soon as you stop moving, you are no longer hidden. Later shouting and attacking revealing you doesn't matter, because you are revealed anyway when your action is over. It means that you are never hidden unless you are currently acting. TWYCS can never apply to being hidden, because you are never hidden when you enemy is attacking.

I think you would get a more reasonable result if you just assume that hidden is a lasting condition, but you cannot be hide as part of a Free Actions (otherwise you get infinite Stealth checks). That hidden is lasting is strongly implied by the RAW. To disallow hiding with a free action, I admit you would have to appeal to RAI.

BTW, I am really enjoying your analysis of this problem. Your posts on Stealth have gone a long way to refining my own interpretation of the rules, even when I disagree with you.

 

[clearstream]

The rules on PHB25 only talk about check results, not rolls. It only indicates you are comparing one result to another, not one roll to another.

See also 178 under the heading Opposed Checks. I feel that is unambiguous. Stealth is even used as the example. Both parties roll. Well, it says characters, but surely no one would be churlish enough to make a meal of that, would they?

Furthermore, PH179 states that you make a passive check if you are not actively using the skill. My interpretation of this is that you make a passive check whenever it is not your action. I also interpret this to mean that if it is your action, you always make an active check.

My own reading of the example on PHB179 is that it describes a 'ready' state of watchfulness. It reads 'you aren't actually looking for danger'. Were you in an 'alert' state of watchfulness, you would make active checks.

Related to that, I've been scouring RAW for somewhere that tells you opposing checks take an action. So far as I can find, there is no such wording; have you found any? I can find examples of the opposite, e.g. Bluff is opposed by Insight, and it sure seems like the Insight user gets their opposing check with no action.

So, if I am hiding from you on my turn, I make an active Stealth check against your passive Perception check. If you are trying to spot me on your turn, you make an active Perception check against my passive Stealth check.

The RAW doesn't say this for Stealth, it only appears under TWYCS 'when a creature is invisible, you're blinded, or fighting in darkness you can't see through'. The Stealth rules block unambiguously instructs you to make an opposed check, and those are active.

I understand where you are trying to go with this. Make stealth apply only to the current action fixes a bunch of problems, especially when for stealth during free actions.

It sure does. Even if you don't spam them, a free check in each opponent's turn to get (re)hidden feels problematical. Stealthy free actions though, well you can ignore those. They're like a tree falling in an empty forest.

Unfortunately, I think this interpretation fails the common-sense test in a big way. It means you are hidden while you are moving, but as soon as you stop moving, you are no longer hidden. Later shouting and attacking revealing you doesn't matter, because you are revealed anyway when your action is over.

If a Rogue uses Riposte Strike and then attempts to move stealthily, the situation can arise where an an attack reveals them during their stealthy move. Other immediate interrupts can have the same effect. Also it is important to know that an attack performed stealthily doesn't need a Perception check to notice. Same goes for shouting. Without that wording, you might try to shout unheard.

It means that you are never hidden unless you are currently acting. TWYCS can never apply to being hidden, because you are never hidden when you enemy is attacking.

I'm glad you spotted that. I found it a rather nice outcome. Incidentally, compare the wording under the Superior Cover or Total Concealment caption of the Stealth rules block with the TWYCS rules. They're very similar. It's just a feeling, but I find the inclusion of that wording separately under Stealth suggestive that RAW never intended to hook up Stealth to TWYCS. That and the absence of wording instructing us to connect them, which is kind of an incredible omission, if accidental (FAQ notwithstanding).

I think you would get a more reasonable result if you just assume that hidden is a lasting condition, but you cannot be hide as part of a Free Actions (otherwise you get infinite Stealth checks). That hidden is lasting is strongly implied by the RAW. To disallow hiding with a free action, I admit you would have to appeal to RAI.

Absolutely. At the point you did that you no longer have guidance from RAW as to which actions should be permitted and which shouldn't. My earlier position, feet squarely in the lasting condition camp, was to call for a separate (minor) action to get hidden with (or use a power or skill other than stealth that explicitly gives you a check). That is a solid ruling, if you want stealth as a lasting condition.

My firm belief is that letting actions be performed stealthily and at the same time letting stealth be a lasting condition is a source of problems, confusion, dystopic balancing issues, and makes the mechanics extremely tough to resolve. Pick one way, make that way work. I'm writing an open letter to WotC on this subject on their forums.

BTW, I am really enjoying your analysis of this problem. Your posts on Stealth have gone a long way to refining my own interpretation of the rules, even when I disagree with you.

Thank you! It makes an encouraging difference to hear something positive.

-vk

 

[MarkB]

See also 178 under the heading Opposed Checks. I feel that is unambiguous. Stealth is even used as the example. Both parties roll. Well, it says characters, but surely no one would be churlish enough to make a meal of that, would they?

But how about page 179, under Passive Checks?

"When you're not actively using a skill, you're assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill."​

Again, Perception vs. Stealth is the specific example used. That, plus the text under Perception on page 186, would seem to trump the text on page 178 in classic "specific overrides general" form.

 

[Andur]

Carrying a light source negates cover

Umm, no it doesn't. It doesn't even make sense:

A ::: D

A is the attacker, he has no light source, ::: is a 2 square thick wall 5 feet high, D is the defender he does have a light source.

According to your "RAW", A can attack D because D has a light source, thus negating superior cover. D can't directly attack A back since A has no light source.

 

[clearstream]

But how about page 179, under Passive Checks?

"When you're not actively using a skill, you're assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill."
​

Again, Perception vs. Stealth is the specific example used. That, plus the text under Perception on page 186, would seem to trump the text on page 178 in classic "specific overrides general" form.

That is a significant wording, but how on Earth does it reconcile with the wording under Opposed Checks? On the one hand we're told 'both characters roll', while on the other hand we're told one character isn't rolling. That looks like a plain contradiction.

Hmm. It could be that taking 10 is 'rolling' so far as RAW is concerned. The Take 10 rules read 'as if you had rolled the...'.

Okay, quick sanity check. If a player at your table wants to roll their Insight against a Thug who is Bluffing them, are you going to let them roll their opposing roll, or are you telling them they're taking 10?


-vk

 

[clearstream]

Umm, no it doesn't. It doesn't even make sense:

A ::: D

A is the attacker, he has no light source, ::: is a 2 square thick wall 5 feet high, D is the defender he does have a light source.

According to your "RAW", A can attack D because D has a light source, thus negating superior cover. D can't directly attack A back since A has no light source.

Cover isn't Superior Cover, but that aside I kind of agree. I was trying the wording, because the fact is that under RAW observers automatically see you if you're carrying a light source. Once you join up the dots, it's doing something like negating cover or concealment.

But not quite the same

-vk

 

[Andur]

Cover and concealment are two very different things. In the modern world it is best described as thus: Cover stops bullets, Concealment doesn't. (Which means there are different types of cover for different types of bullets. The cover for protection from a 9mm will not save your from the effects of a 105mm round) It doesn't matter how well you can see a target for cover, it only matters for concealment. Not to mention a light source can actually be concealment.