Stealth - the low down UPDATED!

[komi]

Referring to the standard action check: the notion is that it doesn't suffer the 10 point problem.

Would you rule this way when trying to find an invisible creature?

If so, then finding an invisible creature trying to hide behind some crates is just as easy as finding a visible creature doing the same.

If not, then this does not seem like a consistent application of the rules on p. 281.

 

[clearstream]

Would you rule this way when trying to find an invisible creature?

Yes. I would use TWYCS rules for an invisible creature.

If so, then finding an invisible creature trying to hide behind some crates is just as easy as finding a visible creature doing the same.

Yes. The FAQ says Stealth does something magical. My theory is magic underpants. Whatever it is, you might as well be invisible so long as you remain in Cover or Concealment. Once you leave Cover or Concealment, you'll possibly wish you really were invisible.

-vk

 

[komi]

Yes. The FAQ says Stealth does something magical. My theory is magic underpants. Whatever it is, you might as well be invisible so long as you remain in Cover or Concealment. Once you leave Cover or Concealment, you'll possibly wish you really were invisible.

But there's an interpretation that is completely consistent and doesn't require magic pants. Only add the +10 to the stealth check for creatures that are impossible to see regardless of hidden status. This has a number of benefits:

- It matches flavor text better (all examples are of cases where it's impossible to see the creature regardless of stealth).
- It is more consistent (the +10 to stealth is mentioned for the passive perception as well).
- It brings stealth better into balance.
- It makes hiding while invisible easier than while not invisible.

To me it seems like such a better fit rules-wise to attach the +10 to stealth to type of creature that you're trying to perceive rather than the action you are using.

 

[clearstream]

But there's an interpretation that is completely consistent and doesn't require magic pants. Only add the +10 to the stealth check for creatures that are impossible to see regardless of hidden status. This has a number of benefits:

- It matches flavor text better (all examples are of cases where it's impossible to see the creature regardless of stealth).
- It is more consistent (the +10 to stealth is mentioned for the passive perception as well).
- It brings stealth better into balance.
- It makes hiding while invisible easier than while not invisible.

To me it seems like such a better fit rules-wise to attach the +10 to stealth to type of creature that you're trying to perceive rather than the action you are using.

You make a lot of sense. On the WotC forums Tsuul suggested that the word 'concealed' under the heading Invisible Creature Uses Stealth could be read as 'invisible' or 'totally concealed' as opposed to 'hidden'. If you do read it that way, then that block applies literally only to entities that are invisible that are also using Stealth.

That would exactly resolve the RAW in the direction you suggest.

The opening statement of the TWYCS rules seems to support that. However, we've been instructed to use those rules for hidden entities. There's nothing that then distinguishes those entities in a way that lets us disapply the +10 rules with any greater justice than disapplying the rules for Pick A Square And Attack.

That block isn't written to pull apart that way. Or can you think of something? Otherwise DMs can go various RAI routes, but RAW seems to admit only the standard action way out.

-vk

 

[Klaus]

While this might work on paper, it won't work in play. Beating the stealth roll by 10 points would be so rare that you might as well not roll at all.


If the creature forfeits all actions, they shouldn't be forced to re-roll their stealth. That way, if you roll high, you can choose to do nothing and keep your good result.

Why? Two opponents of the same level cancel each other's "1/2 level" modifier. If you roll exceptionally high on Stealth, you deserve to remain unseen.

And note, if you beat a Stealth check by less than 10, the opponent is still aware of the general direction and distance to you. For an area attack, that tends to be enough.

As for re-rolling each round, MarkB has the right of it: circumstances change all the time, and it's better to simplify that as a simple "re-roll at the end of your turn".

 

[bardolph]

The "-10 rule" from TWYCS makes sense when an invisible creature fails its Stealth check, and one or more observers want to target it. Here's how it would go down:

1. The invisible creature tries to sneak into a group of enemies undetected.
2. The invisible creature rolls Stealth, but fails to beat the Passive Perception of one of the creatures. All creatures are now alerted that there is someone in their midst. The observer whose Passive Perception was high enough to beat the Stealth check may also know the direction to the invisible creature.
3. One of the (now alerted) creatures rolls Perception as a minor action, and beats the Stealth check of the invisible creature, but not by ten or more.
4. This creature now knows the direction of the invisible creature, and can either guess a square and attack with a ranged attack, or move directly towards the creature, and if it bumps into the invisible creature (by having its movement obstructed), it can make a melee attack into the blocked square at -5 attack due to Total Concealment. As long as the invisible creature is equal to or less than the observer's move in squares distant, the observer should be able to locate the invisible creature in this fashion.
5. Another of the observers rolls Perception as a minor action, and beats the Stealth check of the invisible creature by 10 or more points. This observer can attack freely with range or melee, because he knows exactly which square the invisible creature is in. The observer is still at -5 to hit, however, due to Total Concealment.

 

[bardolph]

Why? Two opponents of the same level cancel each other's "1/2 level" modifier. If you roll exceptionally high on Stealth, you deserve to remain unseen.

I'll give you an example.

Player A: Stealth +5, Player B: Perception +5 (Passive 15). Both creatures are equal.

Player A rolls 11, for a Stealth Check of 16. This is a very AVERAGE roll.

Player B rolls a 20, for a Perception check of 25. TOO BAD, the natural 20 does not beat the Stealth Check by ten or more points (target was 26).

Therefore, the observer cannot know what square the hidden creature is in, no matter how good the roll. Keep in mind that this was an AVERAGE roll by the stealther, versus a PERFECT roll by the observer.

 

[Klaus]

I'll give you an example.

Player A: Stealth +5, Player B: Perception +5 (Passive 15). Both creatures are equal.

Player A rolls 11, for a Stealth Check of 16. This is a very AVERAGE roll.

Player B rolls a 20, for a Perception check of 25. TOO BAD, the natural 20 does not beat the Stealth Check by ten or more points (target was 26).

Therefore, the observer cannot know what square the hidden creature is in, no matter how good the roll. Keep in mind that this was an AVERAGE roll by the stealther, versus a PERFECT roll by the observer.

Yes, but he's beaten the Stealth check, so he knows the hidden creature is in a specific direction (how specific this direction is is up to the DM). He can pick a square to attack, or he can take action to remove the cover or concealment (by walking past a bunch of crates, or by shining a light in the appropriate direction).

Not beating the Stealth DC by 10 =/= End of the world.

 

[Klaus]

I'll give you an example.

Player A: Stealth +5, Player B: Perception +5 (Passive 15). Both creatures are equal.

Player A rolls 11, for a Stealth Check of 16. This is a very AVERAGE roll.

Player B rolls a 20, for a Perception check of 25. TOO BAD, the natural 20 does not beat the Stealth Check by ten or more points (target was 26).

Therefore, the observer cannot know what square the hidden creature is in, no matter how good the roll. Keep in mind that this was an AVERAGE roll by the stealther, versus a PERFECT roll by the observer.

Yes, but he's beaten the Stealth check, so he knows the hidden creature is in a specific direction (how specific this direction is is up to the DM). He can pick a square to attack, or he can take action to remove the cover or concealment (by walking past a bunch of crates, or by shining a light in the appropriate direction).

Not beating the Stealth DC by 10 =/= End of the world.

 

[bardolph]

Not beating the Stealth DC by 10 =/= End of the world.

It better not be, considering that will almost never happen.

However, take a step back and think about it. You're a Level 1 Ranger, facing a Level 1 Goblin Warrior. Goblin rolls a 22 on Stealth, beating your Passive Perception of 17. On your turn, you take a minor action, and roll a 25 on Perception (that's a natural 18 -- a very good roll).

YOU: "I fire at the Goblin"
DM: "OK, which square do you fire at?"
YOU: "I beat his Stealth roll by three points! I fire at the GOBLIN, not his friggin square!"
DM: "Sorry, but you didn't roll a 32"
YOU: "???"