Stealth - Streamlined PEACH

[Mistwell]

Hang on, you quote the part where he speaks about a single high Perception enemy shuts down the stealthers.

That's not what he said. He said "4. Remember that intelligent foes will share information. If one of the four hobgoblins spots a hidden PC, that guy can tell his allies where the PC is hiding." Here, let me spell at least part of it out more clearly:

1) The foes have to be INTELLIGENT. Your house rule does not include this portion. If you are fighting a group of animals for example, a single high perception enemy cannot shut down the stealth.

2) They have to ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE THE INFORMATION, and this is not included in your house rule. This means it can never be "automatic" because you communicate on your own turn, and you have to be able to communicate which has it's own restrictions for things like LOS and a perception check to hear and understand over combat, a DM ruling on the availability of that free action, the revealing to the party of hidden foes because of that communication, etc..

And even with both of those limitations, Mearls goes on to say things which run contrary to that statement, and he makes it clear that he biases the scale TOWARDS BEING MORE LIBERAL WITH STEALTH CHECKS. He also allows for re-hiding while out in the open in a manner that your house rule does not, for example.

You've taken Meals out of context, ignored portions of what he said that don't meet with your house rule and pretended he never said those things, ignored actual RAW, and all around tried to dress your own house rule up in the outfit of RAI. It's simply not an accurate claim that your house rule is RAI. We don't know RAI, and the evidence you use is at best misrepresented.

 

[clearstream]

1) The foes have to be INTELLIGENT. Your house rule does not include this portion. If you are fighting a group of animals for example, a single high perception enemy cannot shut down the stealth.

It's true Mearls said 'intelligent'. I'd let wolves share information the same way, but if you felt they couldn't that's fair enough. Either way it's RAI.

2) They have to ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE THE INFORMATION, and this is not included in your house rule. This means it can never be "automatic" because you communicate on your own turn, and you have to be able to communicate which has it's own restrictions for things like LOS and a perception check to hear and understand over combat, a DM ruling on the availability of that free action, the revealing to the party of hidden foes because of that communication, etc..

PHB267 Free actions can be done on anyone's turn. Sure LOS should apply, but it'll cascade right. X tells Y tells Z. It's gamey, but that's 4th for you.

There are no rules demanding a perception check to hear and understand over combat. If you want to add some for your group I'd say that's fair enough.

And even with both of those limitations, Mearls goes on to say things which run contrary to that statement, and he makes it clear that he biases the scale TOWARDS BEING MORE LIBERAL WITH STEALTH CHECKS. He also allows for re-hiding while out in the open in a manner that your house rule does not, for example.

Hell yeah; that's why I've done all this work. To let DMs be more liberal with granting stealth checks, safe in the knowledge it's easy to run and not granting far out imba defences that need a reappraisal of the whole thing.

You are referring to Mearls allowing hiding to last over transient loss of cover. Unlike sharing information, there is RAW that exactly says you can't do that. However, as a mechanical inevitability, with my RAI you can cross the open space and re-hide where you need to. Same outcome.

-vk

 

[Mistwell]

It's true Mearls said 'intelligent'. I'd let wolves share information the same way, but if you felt they couldn't that's fair enough. Either way it's RAI.



PHB267 Free actions can be done on anyone's turn. Sure LOS should apply, but it'll cascade right. X tells Y tells Z. It's gamey, but that's 4th for you.

There are no rules demanding a perception check to hear and understand over combat. If you want to add some for your group I'd say that's fair enough.



Hell yeah; that's why I've done all this work. To let DMs be more liberal with granting stealth checks, safe in the knowledge it's easy to run and not granting far out imba defences that need a reappraisal of the whole thing.

You are referring to Mearls allowing hiding to last over transient loss of cover. Unlike sharing information, there is RAW that exactly says you can't do that. However, as a mechanical inevitability, with my RAI you can cross the open space and re-hide where you need to. Same outcome.

-vk

For the point on intelligent creatures...lets be very clear: Your personal system does not follow that "rules as intended". It's not there. If you think that is RAI, then why doesn't your system have it?

As for communicating, you still need to actually do the communication, which has limits on it, and you are not accounting for those limits in your "system". You make it automatic communication at all times, but that is not what Mearls said. It's no more the case that all creatures always communicate everything at all times as it is that all creatures are always using stealth at all times. Some creatures will do it, others will not, and sometimes will depend on the situation at hand, and it's in no way automatic. Your system doesn't work the way that Mearls is describing it - you make it always on, always automatic, always successful.

As for rehiding, so let me see if I get this straight...for rehiding, you will default to RAW over what you claim is RAI, but for going against each creatures perception check instead of all of them at once, you go with what you think is RAI instead of RAW?

I think it's time you just fessed up that this is just all your personal system. It's a fine system, but you know, I know, and pretty much everyone in this thread knows it's not the known rules as intended.

 

[clearstream]

For the point on intelligent creatures...lets be very clear: Your personal system does not follow that "rules as intended". It's not there. If you think that is RAI, then why doesn't your system have it?.

My view is Mearls was intending intelligent to include both rational and cunning creatures, and I sincerely believe he intended a wolf pack to be able to share information just like hobgoblins. Mindless automata might be different, but that's rules by exceptions for you. If you like a different definition, go for it.

As for communicating, you still need to actually do the communication, which has limits on it, and you are not accounting for those limits in your "system".

4th steps right up and offers you a system that doesn't worry too much about the fluff, so long as the mechanics work. Communicating is a free action. Anything you want to add does nothing to detract from my RAI.

Your system doesn't work the way that Mearls is describing it - you make it always on, always automatic, always successful.

Show me the part where Mearls says 'throw a dice to decide if the hobgoblins share information' and I'll agree he meant it wasn't automatic.

As for rehiding, so let me see if I get this straight...for rehiding, you will default to RAW over what you claim is RAI, but for going against each creatures perception check instead of all of them at once, you go with what you think is RAI instead of RAW?.

Sorry, here I must have explained badly. The same principle applies both times. With Perception we're cool, right? Were you to agree (I'm not saying you do) that exact information can be freely shared, then we really only need to test the perceiver with the highest passive at the outset. So with move actions, if we play through the options we find one option where the hider dashes across open space and ends up hidden on the other side. As Mearls was a designer on the system I know that he's aware of the level 10 utility power Shadow Stride. He can't intend to make the last line of that power meaningless, so he must intend that he wants to let the stealther zip across and get rehidden. You then play through scenarios and do some reverse-engineering, and you find the ruling that fits his intention.

I think it's time you just fessed up that this is just all your personal system. It's a fine system, but you know, I know, and pretty much everyone in this thread knows it's not the known rules as intended.

Don't make me come over there and show you the back of my hand.



-vk

 

[MarkB]

Show me the part where Mearls says 'throw a dice to decide if the hobgoblins share information' and I'll agree he meant it wasn't automatic.

The middle ground between "opponents don't share information" and "opponents share information perfectly and automatically" is not "roll randomly".

That middle ground consists of role-playing the opposition's tactical capabilities appropriately - determining whether they use good communications just as you would determine whether they make good use of flanking, role synergy, selective targeting and all the other tactical options available to them.

Also, you talk about Mearls' proposed encounter where taking out one particularly perceptive individual is the key to being able to use stealth effectively on the rest. In my opinion, he was not intending to suggest this as a general mode of operation, but instead using it as a 'hook' for a particular scenario.

The obvious method of doing so would be for the most perceptive monster in the encounter to have some special ability to visually mark a stealthy opponent once it spots them. This could be achieved as simply as having a Perception-focused wizard who would cast Light in the square of any stealthy opponent he spots.

 

[clearstream]

The middle ground between "opponents don't share information" and "opponents share information perfectly and automatically" is not "roll randomly".

'If the rules do something, they shouldn't hide it.' If the rules mean you can't use a free action to communicate, or that there are significant restrictions on doing so, they should say so. What they do say is you can speak a few sentences: 'He's there, where Grog took a dump.' Points. (Filthy Orcs.)

Also, you talk about Mearls' proposed encounter where taking out one particularly perceptive individual is the key to being able to use stealth effectively on the rest. In my opinion, he was not intending to suggest this as a general mode of operation, but instead using it as a 'hook' for a particular scenario.

His musing was intentional toward a general principle, with a specific example added for emphasis. It elaborated on what sharing information might imply, being a couple of posts down the thread from the earlier remarks.

The obvious method of doing so would be for the most perceptive monster in the encounter to have some special ability to visually mark a stealthy opponent once it spots them. This could be achieved as simply as having a Perception-focused wizard who would cast Light in the square of any stealthy opponent he spots.

The most obvious method being X, Mearls would have no reason to include words describing X, as any reader would know he intended X. My counter-argument is that the most obvious method is not X but Y, which is to use a Free action as provided for in the rules to communicate the exact location of the spotted enemy. In classic form, you will now need to demonstrate X is preferrable to Y. Be warned that I intend to argue that Mearls did in fact refer to something close to Y (sharing information), and nothing at all like X.

I can see you are interested in getting Stealth right, and I respect that; so rather than continue down this pernicious line of argument, may I invite you instead to critique with a view to enhancing?

-vk

 

[MarkB]

'If the rules do something, they shouldn't hide it.' If the rules mean you can't use a free action to communicate, or that there are significant restrictions on doing so, they should say so. What they do say is you can speak a few sentences: 'He's there, where Grog took a dump.' Points. (Filthy Orcs.)

You seem to have missed the point. Just because the rules (or, in this case, not the rules, but a developer's offhand comment) state that you can do something, that doesn't mean that every single monster in the Monster Manual will do that thing, perfectly and automatically.

Telling allies where someone is hiding is all about communication, and not all monsters will communicate or cooperate perfectly in combat. The degree to which they do so should be at the DM's discretion, not hard-coded into a set of rules, as it is with your Stealth rules.

The most obvious method being X, Mearls would have no reason to include words describing X, as any reader would know he intended X.

Actually, I rather suspect he intended Z, a specialised Monster power that he would rather not allude to in too great detail for fear of spoiling the surprise if he does go ahead and make such an encounter. I merely gave X, a Light spell, as a simple way to accomplish the same thing using an existing class power.

My counter-argument is that the most obvious method is not X but Y, which is to use a Free action as provided for in the rules to communicate the exact location of the spotted enemy. In classic form, you will now need to demonstrate X is preferrable to Y. Be warned that I intend to argue that Mearls did in fact refer to something close to Y (sharing information), and nothing at all like X.

At this point I'm going to have to ask you to point to the rule that says that you can grant an ally a free, automatically successful stealth-busting Perception check simply by pointing and saying "He's over there." Otherwise, your option Y does not exist in any ruleset but your own.

I can see you are interested in getting Stealth right, and I respect that; so rather than continue down this pernicious line of argument, may I invite you instead to critique with a view to enhancing?

I think my earlier posting of an alternative ruleset went some way in that direction. Your streamlined rules are mostly fine, except in the areas of how easily opponents can narrow down a hidden character's position, and your concept of a single successful Perception check being sufficient to utterly defeat a character's Stealth check for all creatures allied to the spotter.

Your counter-argument that altering either of those factors will both make Stealth too effective and consume extra time is reasonable, but it does not address the stance of the rules on the issue.

I'm not sure what the middle ground would be between your interpretation and mine, or whether it could be ruled in a relatively simple matter, but I'm happy to try. I'll consider some possibilities and post again tomorrow.

 

[clearstream]

Telling allies where someone is hiding is all about communication, and not all monsters will communicate or cooperate perfectly in combat.

point to the rule that says that you can grant an ally a free, automatically successful stealth-busting Perception check simply by pointing and saying "He's over there."

The RAW is PHB267. Since it's free, they can always spam it. Since you're the DM, you can always allow it.

Since you're a good DM, you only use it in ways designed to make the game more fun for all players . That particular bit of RAW does a huge amount of work, when you think about it. Nearly any piece of information players share, they share because of it.

Just to be clear, the spotter doesn't grant a Perception check, he tells his buddies exactly where the enemy is: they're now noticed and in effect heard, and so far as being hidden from view goes 'He's there, in the shady corner we use as a urinal'. Recollecting of course that both Cover and Concealment are states where LOS are still available.

Your streamlined rules are mostly fine, except in the areas of how easily opponents can narrow down a hidden character's position, and your concept of a single successful Perception check being sufficient to utterly defeat a character's Stealth check for all creatures allied to the spotter.

Your counter-argument that altering either of those factors will both make Stealth too effective and consume extra time is reasonable, but it does not address the stance of the rules on the issue.

Hmm. If the problem is you fear not using RAW, I suspect a lot of reflection on the full implications of PHB267 might settle that.

If the problem is the 'single successful Perception check', what I'm finding is that most encounters the trained Rogue handily out-hides all enemies. When she doesn't, that's because I've set up the situation to make a special challenge for her and some fun for the other party members. Why would you then sabotage that? You see what I mean?

Finally, I don't think most encounters are meant to be all about stealth, but we've been told straight that it should be able to be used many times each encounter. The all or none rule sorts that right out.

I'm not sure what the middle ground would be between your interpretation and mine, or whether it could be ruled in a relatively simple matter, but I'm happy to try. I'll consider some possibilities and post again tomorrow.

I'm honestly looking forward to that. May I suggest one technique? Go ahead for a session and just use the rules as presented; do the mental trick of just accepting what you earlier thought was wrong, as right.

Then see if the new place you find yourself in works or not. I've tried Stealth with both individual checks and group checks, and unless I set up a situation with special spotters, the Rogue has a field day against nearly anything of appropriate level.

-vk

 

[Mistwell]

I think it's pretty clear at this point that, while you said PEACH, you didn't mean it.

So I will ask everyone except you - does ANYONE IN THIS THREAD think the system proposed in this thread is the exact "Rules As Intended"? Note, I am not asking if you think the proposed system is reasonable (I think it's one reasonable system myself), I am asking if anyone agrees with the OP that this IS the RAI itself?

 

[MarkB]

The RAW is PHB267. Since it's free, they can always spam it. Since you're the DM, you can always allow it.

Since you're a good DM, you only use it in ways designed to make the game more fun for all players . That particular bit of RAW does a huge amount of work, when you think about it. Nearly any piece of information players share, they share because of it.

Just to be clear, the spotter doesn't grant a Perception check, he tells his buddies exactly where the enemy is: they're now noticed and in effect heard, and so far as being hidden from view goes 'He's there, in the shady corner we use as a urinal'. Recollecting of course that both Cover and Concealment are states where LOS are still available.

Just because you have line of sight to something doesn't mean you can see it - or else Stealth checks would be impossible in the first place.

Your position is that pointing out someone causes their Stealth check to fail utterly. Mine is that it simply lets allies know which square they're in, and could reasonably be ruled to grant them a bonus to their Perception checks (active and passive). If their Perception check still fails, then they have failed to spot the hidden opponent and must take their ally's word on faith that he's in that square. And since they cannot see him, he is effectively totally concealed from them and they take a -5 penalty to ranged attacks.

Hmm. If the problem is you fear not using RAW, I suspect a lot of reflection on the full implications of PHB267 might settle that.

That's not the problem. I mention RAW because you have previously, in this thread, defended your rules as being a reasonable reflection of RAW, and I felt that you should revisit that conclusion.

If the problem is the 'single successful Perception check', what I'm finding is that most encounters the trained Rogue handily out-hides all enemies. When she doesn't, that's because I've set up the situation to make a special challenge for her and some fun for the other party members. Why would you then sabotage that? You see what I mean?

I've already suggested a completely RAW-friendly way in which a Perception-focused character could be a stealth-buster without resorting to your "pointing-equals-perception" rules (and whilst my initial suggestion involved a Light spell, a sunrod will work just as well), so if you want to create such an encounter, you can do so just as easily by my rules as yours.

Finally, I don't think most encounters are meant to be all about stealth, but we've been told straight that it should be able to be used many times each encounter. The all or none rule sorts that right out.

I don't see that allowing a character to hide successfully very frequently, terrain permitting, whilst the other characters all go about their own business, is making an encounter "all about stealth". Most of the opposition won't even be looking for the hidden character - they'll be getting tied up on the Defender, trying to get in some shots at the Controller, or taking cover themselves to evade the ranged Strikers. Generally, only a couple of mobility- or Perception-focused attackers will pursue the stealthy Rogue, and their game of cat-and-mouse will be merely one small aspect of the general encounter.

I'm honestly looking forward to that. May I suggest one technique? Go ahead for a session and just use the rules as presented; do the mental trick of just accepting what you earlier thought was wrong, as right.

Then see if the new place you find yourself in works or not. I've tried Stealth with both individual checks and group checks, and unless I set up a situation with special spotters, the Rogue has a field day against nearly anything of appropriate level.

I'll see what I can do - but currently my only prospective DMing is for a group of 4e newbies who are just starting to learn the rules, so the last thing I want to do is start moving the goalposts on them at this point. I'll discuss it with them, and see if they're happy to be part of the experiment.