Stealth - the low down UPDATED!

[Klaus]

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: "???"

Ranger: "Where's the goblin?"
DM: "He disappeared somewhere behind those bushes to the northwest."
Ranger: "Okay, I move behind a tree, gaining cover, and roll my own Stealth. Once I'm hidden, I'll circle around until I can see the other side of those bushes."

 

[bardolph]

Ranger: "Where's the goblin?"
DM: "He disappeared somewhere behind those bushes to the northwest."
Ranger: "Okay, I move behind a tree, gaining cover, and roll my own Stealth. Once I'm hidden, I'll circle around until I can see the other side of those bushes."

Fair enough. If you don't see a problem with not being able to target your opponent after beating its stealth check, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[clearstream]

Fair enough. If you don't see a problem with not being able to target your opponent after beating its stealth check, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And I'll agree with you Bardolph

On the WotC boards the weight of opinion has moved toward interpreting the FAQ as instructing us to consider the TWYCS rules, but only to apply them in whole in the case of blindness, invisibility, or total darkness. That follows a CSR appearing to clarify the situation.

Anyway, I've updated my OP according to what now looks like the best interpretation for DMs.

-vk

 

[komi]

I would add a general suggestion regarding balance for people wanting to apply the +10 to stealth once your hidden.

Let's pretend hidden is a house. Having the initial stealth be versus a passive perception DC makes it much easier for him to get inside, statistically speaking. Once he's in the house, giving opponents a -10 to evict him makes it damn hard to get him out. This is a win-win for a stealther. So from a balance point of view, either have the initial roll be versus active DC or don't give the +10 to stealth once hidden. Of course I'm going with the latter, but either way should balance things better.

 

[Theli]

Thanks for the updates. Stealth actually seems almost simple now.

 

[clearstream]

Thanks for the updates. Stealth actually seems almost simple now.

God knows why I decided to obsess on Stealth I'm going to leave this last update (of my OP) to settle for a few days, then I'll cross-post it somewhere useful. The confusion appears to have mostly dispelled.

All the best!

-vk

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Concerning #1. Specific Beats General (p.11 of the PHB) would indicate that a check granted by a power is appropriate.

For other usage, A stealth check should be appropriate whenever you have cover or concealment. It's no different than making a climbing check to climb a rope that's in front of you or jumping over a pit. There may be special circumstances (e.g. You can't jump over the pit because you're crawling through an 24" high crawlspace on your belly.) that prohibit making a check, but that should be the exception rather than the rule.

The way you have written #1, you're making it sounds like the game intends the Rogue to only be able to use Stealth by making a beneDMiction. It makes the entire post come off more like, "I don't like stealth and here's how to nerf it." While the title seems to indicate the intent of, "This is clarifying stealth."

 

[Syrsuro]

As I read the RAW, I don't see the need for official clarification (although more clarity is always good - especially some good examples of stealth in play).

Part of the problem may be confusion between the states of Cover, Concealment and Hidden.

Cover occurs when an object between the attacker and target blocks some or all attacks.
Concealment occurs when the attacker has difficulty seeing the target.
Hidden occurs when the attacker does not notice the target.



Thus a target may have all three: I.e. Hiding (stealth) in a dark room (concealment) behind a brick wall (cover) or it may have only one of the above. And there is some interaction (cover or concealment makes hiding easier, and one of the effects of concealment - per TWYCS - is an automatic stealth check). But they are different conditions.


The rules for Targeting What You Cannot See are, imho, clearly intended to apply only to concealment, not to those who are hiding via a stealth check. This is why they are on the concealment page and this is why the conditions mentioned in the sidebar are those that grant concealment (invisible, blinded, darkness). They are not intended to be applied to either cover or hidden conditions when they occur in the absence of concealment. Applying those rules to anything besides concealment is adding an unintended interpretation to the RAW (despite the vague comment in the FAQ).

Thus, imho under no circumstance does the sidebar even APPLY to a character who is merely hiding, even a character who is hiding behind a brick wall. Under those conditions you would apply the normal stealth and cover rules, rather than the TWYCS rules.

That said: Now I am going to contradict myself. There is a condition not covered - as far as I can see - in the concealment and cover rules. I will call this absolute cover. This is the condition where the target cannot be seen or attacked due to cover. For example, if there is a wall between them that is significantly higher and wider than either combatant. This wall blocks all direct attacks (in either direction), and yet sound can carry and you may be aware of someone's presence in that area. Under these conditions, I would also use the TWYCS rules to allow someone a chance to locate (but not attack, obviously) the character. But as that is technically not concealment, this would be a houserule - and under those conditions requiring a roll of 20 or better is not out of the question.

Carl

 

[bardolph]

It applies, by the RAW, to characters who cannot be seen due to concealment. The reference in the FAQ to the TWYCS is a red herring and can only be seen as a reference to what to do when a character has both stealth and concealment. But it does not state and should not be interpreted to mean that stealth grants concealment.

Not exactly. TWYCS is a reference for Total Concealment (which can result from invisibility, blindness, or darkness), and applies regardless of whether or not the concealed character succeeded in a Stealth check.

Since Stealth does not upgrade a square from concealment to total concealment, TWYCS really doesn't apply to "normal" stealth rolls. However, one can infer that the minor action Perception check can be used to spot a "normally" hidden creature.

 

[bardolph]

Another interpretation (which may actually be RAW and WotC's interpretation) is that, once the stealther beats your passive perception, you're pretty much out of luck with regards to targeting the exact square, but you can use TWYCS to discern the direction and make an educated guess. In this scenario, all the observer can really do is hope the hidden character fails their Stealth roll on their turn.