Stealth - the low down

[Tonester]

1. Stealth does not upgrade Cover to Superior Cover, or Concealment to Total Concealment. Stealth does not connect with Targeting What You Can't See.

Stealth does connect to "Target What You Can't See" in the sense that when you can't see a target you wish to attack, you make a minor action perception check against their last stealth check. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean you can't hear them. And, if they aren't walking, drinking potions, etc stealthily, you will hear them.

2. If you have Cover or Concealment from any source you can use Stealth provided your DM deems the given situation appropriate. Your DM will tell you if you can make a check. A power such as Fleeting Ghost or a skill such as Bluff that explicitly grants you a Stealth check should nearly always qualify as 'appropriate'.

Mostly agree, but not completely. See below a bit further.

3. To gain CA on an attack using Stealth, you have to be already hidden by using some other action before making that attack. When you attack from hiding, your hidden condition does not end until after completing the entirety of that attack action.

Agreed.

4. Make Stealth checks against passive Perception. Alert enemies can use minor actions to make further Perception checks, but do not lose the benefit of their passive result by doing so. You have to beat the better of their active roll or their passive Perception.

This is one of the things I think I disagree with. If you succeed against the passive check, then they aren't alert to you. If you failed the passive check, you aren't stealthed. So how are they supposed to make an active check if they aren't aware of you or if you aren't stealthed to them? Once you successfully stealth, you remained unnoticed unless something changes: a) you lose your cover/concealment b) you perform another action with a failed stealth check c) you attack d) you shout. e) someone who is aware of you alerts others, etc. I'd be interested in seeing the support you are referencing.

5. Once any enemy notices you, either by beating your Stealth with their Perception, or by reaching a viewpoint that has no lines of sight blocked by obstacles or allies (of yours) and is not obscured, that enemy can share information. If they do, you are no longer hidden against anyone capable of understanding that information. Example: Wolves hunting in a pack share information about hidden prey. Example: If one of four hobgoblins spots a hidden PC, that guy can tell his allies where the PC is hiding.

This is one of those areas that a DM will cover and make an "appropriateness" call on. It definitely isn't in the PHB anywhere, but it has been mentioned as the way Mearls does it personally... but he even admitted that that doesn't make it official.

6. In an encounter, it uses a minor action to make an active Perception check when searching for a hidden enemy.

Again, this is where things are sort of unclear in the book. The ONLY place it talks about using a minor action to "spot someone" is with regards to Targetting What You Can't See. In all other places, Stealth is against a Passive Perception check. To me, it seems the contradiction occurs when:
An observer is aware of a player one moment and then becomes unaware the next moment for whatever reason. I.E. The player is standing behind a long counter/short wall for cover. The monster sees the player. Then, the player ducks down behind the counter/short wall (and now has cover). Once ducked behind, the player moves with a successful stealth check to another spot which also has cover/concealment. The observer doesn't know where the player is, but they know they are probably around. And in this case, it is treated as if the player has Total Concealment (although they don't most likely) in terms of Targetting What You Can't See. This is one of the instances I can think of where a minor action is used to spot a stealthed character.... other than the instance where the observer is blinded, or where the player is invisible and must stealth to remain quiet.

Player: I walk quietly into the candle-lit room. Anyone there got better than normal vision?
DM: Nope.
Player: Alright. I try for a Stealth check.
DM: There are four guys in this room. They all saw you come in the door. You do have Concealment, but I'm disallowing the check.

That is pretty harsh. If a player says, "I walk quietly into a candle-lit room" then the player probably means to move into the room with a stealth check. And, since it is dim-light, the player has every right to do so. And a good DM would never tell a player if anyone in the room has low-light or darkvision unless someone in the party meta-gamed it or passed a knowledge check. If a player says, "I'll move quietly....." the DM should automatically say, "You need to make a stealth check" even if the DM knows whether or not the creatures have low-light/dark or whatever. By requiring a "bogus check that the player can never succeed in", it allows the DM to not divulge any info about the monsters/creatures. After the player rolls a 20 and then the DM goes, "You hear battle-cries and warning signals echo'ing from the back of the room," the players will then figure out (too late) that someone probably had special vision or one hell of a passive perception.

Player: I charge into the candle-lit room and attack guy one. They're surprised right?
DM: Yup. You get CA.
First Non-Surprise Round
Player: Now I want to move 3-squares to that corner behind them using Ethereal Stride. That activates Shadow Walk, right? Can I try for a Stealth check?
DM: There are four alert guys in this room, but you've teleported directly behind them. They're confused. Go-ahead and make that check. You're at -5 for moving more than 2-squares this turn. They'll use their passive Perception now, and then make active checks on their turns.

As a DM, I wouldn't incur a move penalty on Ethereal Stride. Personally, I think that only applies to actual walking/flying/running/swimming/physical movement. Teleporting (especially ethereally) is way quieter than walking, I'd imagine. I do agree about the passive/active checks however.

*EDIT*
I just wanted to re-iterate: I think the minor active check is only applicable when: A) It is during combat. B) It involves an observer who, at one time, was aware of someone and for whatever reason no longer is. I.E. They jumped into thick foliage, the observer went blind from an attack, the player was behind cover and moved to a new location while have cover/concealment the whole time, the example above with the lock teleporting with concealment from Shadow Walk, the player goes invisible for whatever reason, etc.

 

[Paul Strack]

I just wanted to re-iterate: I think the minor active check is only applicable when: A) It is during combat. B) It involves an observer who, at one time, was aware of someone and for whatever reason no longer is. I.E. They jumped into thick foliage, the observer went blind from an attack, the player was behind cover and moved to a new location while have cover/concealment the whole time, the example above with the lock teleporting with concealment from Shadow Walk, the player goes invisible for whatever reason, etc.

I would assume that if it is a DM judgment call whether players can make active Stealth checks, it is also a DM judgment call when you can make active Perception checks. If one side successfully hid before combat, I wouldn't allow active Perception checks until that side sprung their ambush. If, however, a rogue used a power to hide in the middle of combat, I would allow active Perception checks, because the monsters know the rogue is around *somewhere*, just not where he is right now.

I think I am saying that I agree with you, and I think what you are saying is compatible with the RAW. The description of Perception indicates that it is usually a passive check, and the DM decides when it can be active.

 

[Klaumbaz]

Without burning a feat, only rogues and rangers can train Perception. Wis is not a primary concern for either to get (ie, score = 10, maybe 12, depending on race.) if they're combat oriented (Str, Dex, Con/Cha is what i see in most ranger/rogue builds so far).

so, stealth = +10, Perception = +6 for my rogue at level 2. I couldn't see myself in the darkness with only passive perception.

 

[chris.crouch]

I disagree with mearls's that the attack itself can't be stealthy.

To me, a "stealthy" attack is a sleight-of-hand ie calls for a separate Thievery check.

Chris

 

[ryryguy]

Good advice, vonklaude. Seems like a fair and (most importantly) fun method of running Stealth.

1. Stealth does not upgrade Cover to Superior Cover, or Concealment to Total Concealment. Stealth does not connect with Targeting What You Can't See.

Ruling supported by CSR

Stealth actually granting Total Concealment/Superior Cover definitely seems to strong.

However, this leaves the question, if a character has successfully used Stealth during combat and the opponent knows he is there in general, does the opponent have to succeed in that active Perception check to target the Stealthed character? How can this not interact with Targeting What You Can't See - how else would it work?

 

[erik_the_guy]

Excellent post. Hopefully in 5e stealth does not need its own core rulebook.

 

[MarkB]

I just wanted to re-iterate: I think the minor active check is only applicable when: A) It is during combat. B) It involves an observer who, at one time, was aware of someone and for whatever reason no longer is. I.E. They jumped into thick foliage, the observer went blind from an attack, the player was behind cover and moved to a new location while have cover/concealment the whole time, the example above with the lock teleporting with concealment from Shadow Walk, the player goes invisible for whatever reason, etc.

I'd tend to disagree with this somewhat. I'd say that the very definition of an alert character is one who is dedicating a minor action each round to making an active Perception check, rather than relying upon passive Perception.

Certainly, as a player, if I'm going through a dangerous dungeon and I enter a room that has lots of cover and concealment to make it an ideal ambush spot, I'm going to want to make active Perception checks as I explore that room, and I think the circumstances would warrant that.

Then again, it could lead to players declaring that their characters are making active Perception checks every single round. That would rather spoil the point of passive Perception. Hmm.

 

[clearstream]

if a character has successfully used Stealth during combat and the opponent knows he is there in general, does the opponent have to succeed in that active Perception check to target the Stealthed character? How can this not interact with Targeting What You Can't See - how else would it work?

I'm trying to exit the Stealth debate but allowed myself a few minutes this morning to brush out some cobwebs, and you've identified the most important one. Jump down to the conclusion then come back and read the background.

Background
The moment you place a stealthing character under the Targeting What You Can't See rules, they gain an effective +10 to their Stealth, heavily suggestive that the entities being considered are enjoying some mode of invisibility better than Stealth. To be clear, when you put your stealthing player under those rules, any roll less than their Stealth+10 does not bust their Stealth!

A CSR explicilty clarifies that Stealth does not upgrade Concealment to Total Concealment. Total Concealment does connect with Targeting What You Can't See by using the same words.

Stealth does not.

You need to look at Stealth in combat a different way; guile and gambit, not invisibility. WotC_Mearls suggests Rogues should often get CA from Stealth. He says 'With that in mind, when you are DMing it's OK to be liberal with letting people use the skill.'

When he says 'The game's math assumes that the rogue gets sneak attack with just about every attack he makes' it would be sublimely insouciant of him to leave out 'and a defence against ranged and melee attacks of -5 to be hit, missing automatically if the wrong square is picked, with an effective -10 on Perception checks to pick the right square' that may also protect you from Close or Area attacks if they fail to include your square.

Look at Warrior of the Wild or if you like Skill Training, and consider that Stealth has no cost for use, and can be used untrained. Ask yourself whether you want an At Will power in your game that does not itself cost an action (it rides on other actions), that gives an effect that good?

Conclusion
Your question yields a surprising answer, and one I've been trialling in play. It works fine, but you need to look at Stealth in combat as guile not invisibility.

If a player is hidden by Stealth in cover or concealment, an enemy can attack them with a -2. The sneaky nature of the player will mean that if they attack back they'll have CA. The player is unnoticed, so the DM should take that into account when choosing targets for monster attacks. However, if a monster does pick the player, they are allowed to attack suffering only the penalty for cover or concealment.

Stealth does not upgrade that.

As for active checks
Tonester is right that RAW allows minor action checks only in that one rules block. WotC_Mearls explicitly generalised that to include checks in combat. As he and others indicated, monsters that aren't alert wouldn't make them. After that first Sneak Attack, they might be alert though

And here as on the WotC boards, I believe I am finally done with Stealth!



-vk