WotC CS answers some Stealth and Shadow Walk questions

[Chris_Nightwing]

Would it be simpler as follows:

You must have cover or concealment to attempt to hide.
You use a minor action to attempt to hide. (Stealth check vs. Passive Perception of all enemies)
It is broken if you lose the cover or concealment, or make an attack.
It is a minor action to actively look for someone hidden.

Edit: Oh and I'll add that once hidden, most actions won't break stealth. Further movement, providing cover/concealment is maintained requires another stealth check vs. all passive perceptions.

 

[clearstream]

I asked that way because I saw people here on ENworld talking about "hiding as a Minor action." So, yeas, I agree that you need to be doing something.

The next question you'll need to decide on is does fluff rule over crunch? You have to decide that, because in RAW there is no guide as to which actions can be performed stealthily and which can't. My view is that I don't mind my shy n00b having as much fun as my Drama-major vet; so bottom line I say yes or no based on their having cover or concealment and spending an action. Of course, like anyone I'll rule out nonsense

That's why I put in my posted rulings that you can stealth with a minor action. That doesn't mean I envision anyone saying 'I stretch up on tippy-toe humming the bee song... and hide' unless they're Tinkerbell.

And, "Move 0" sounds utterly bogus to me, no offense. That's not rules-kosher by any stretch.

A move of 0 has been 'clarified' by WotC as permitted. It's possibly needed in conjunction with some powers, or perhaps it's just a pro forma.

The problem is determining what "Stealth works with it" means. A common interpretation is that using Stealth as part of an action doesn't necessarily conceal you, but rather conceals the action. You draw your dager stealthily - does that mean that suddenly you can't be seen? Or that nobody noticed you draw the dagger?

You identify here one of the pivotal decisions DMs have to make about stealth. Line one of the Stealth rules block on PHB188 reads 'Part of whatever action you are trying to perform stealthily'. Doing a bit of forensic reading, the positioning of that line as the opening article of the mechanics block marks it out for special attention. It should key your intentional stance toward everything that follows.

The only mechanical consequence of successful stealth use is under the Success caption. 'You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view. If you later attack or shout, you're no longer hidden.' Here's where the issue is. Line one should have read 'Your action...' instead of 'You', and line two should not contain 'later'. Later cannot be contained to 'later, during this action', but includes 'later, after this action'.

Taken together with the white section preamble, many people adduce the wording in support of a lasting hidden condition. I've offered two takes on it

A lasting hidden condition here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=237063

and

only with the action here
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=236566

Which is right? You'll have to decide. Meanwhile I'm penning an open letter to WotC to urge them to pick one.

-vk

 

[Oompa]

Hmm? With penalties or resistance, damage can be 0... and an attack roll could even be negative.

-Hyp.

I alway's thought that damage and attacks could never be less than 1, except indeed with resistance..

So someone who rolles an d20 - 10 and rolls 5 for an total of -5, automaticly gets an 1 wich is always an miss.. same for damage..

It could be ive been playing this wrong for the last 6 years..

Do you know where the rule stands in the new PHB Hypersmurf, oh great ruler of rules

 

[ForbidenMaster]

I alway's thought that damage and attacks could never be less than 1, except indeed with resistance..

So someone who rolles an d20 - 10 and rolls 5 for an total of -5, automaticly gets an 1 wich is always an miss.. same for damage..

It could be ive been playing this wrong for the last 6 years..

Do you know where the rule stands in the new PHB Hypersmurf, oh great ruler of rules

Isnt the rule in the simple arithmetic? The rules say apply all mods and penalties. I cant find anywhere where they dont say you dont add them past a certain point. Now there are specific cases where there is a minimum of 1 involved, but those are cases of specific vs general.

 

[buzz]

I alway's thought that damage and attacks could never be less than 1, except indeed with resistance.

The rolled damage for an attack is never less than 1 point. This insures that creatures with negative damage mods (say, from low Str) do at least some damage. That has nothing to do with how much damage the target takes. If they have a resistance that ignores that 1 point, they take 0 damage.

There is no rule that says attack rolls are minimum of 1. Your total attack roll can easily be negative if the mods and roll work out that way. The only rule about 1s on attack rolls is that they are auto-misses, no matter what your mods are.

 

[buzz]

A move of 0 has been 'clarified' by WotC as permitted. It's possibly needed in conjunction with some powers, or perhaps it's just a pro forma.

Interesting. Do you have a reference you can point me to?

 

[Tsuul]

Me: Related: the warlock's Shadow Walk ability says the warlock gains Concealment if they "move at least three squares away" from where they started their turn. Does the Concealment occur mid-move, i.e., when the warlock reaches that third square, or must the whole move action be completed first?

CS: You would gain concealment after moving.

I can not agree with CS on this.
If a player moves over a trap, does the trap go off AFTER his move action? Is this Road Runner physics?

Oh and uh, "Beep Beep".

 

[buzz]

If a player moves over a trap, does the trap go off AFTER his move action? Is this Road Runner physics?

Last I checked, Shadow Walk is not a trap.

 

[Tsuul]

Last I checked, Shadow Walk is not a trap.

It is in these Stealth threads =P

I am drawing a comparison between moving and Shadow Walk activating and moving and a trap activating.

In both cases the thing "activating" occurs mid move, unlike moving through an area of concealment, which most likely was already "activated/present" in the world.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The rolled damage for an attack is never less than 1 point.

Do you have a source for that in 4E? I couldn't find one.

I alway's thought that damage and attacks could never be less than 1, except indeed with resistance..

So someone who rolles an d20 - 10 and rolls 5 for an total of -5, automaticly gets an 1 wich is always an miss.. same for damage..

It could be ive been playing this wrong for the last 6 years..

Well, in 3E and 3.5, there certainly was a minimum of 1 on rolled damage. But there was still no minimum on attack rolls.

If you roll a natural 1 on a d20, that's an automatic miss. But just as rolling an 18 with a +2 bonus doesn't count as a natural 20 (and automatic hit), rolling a 3 with a -2 penalty doesn't count as an automatic miss. For exammple, an Elder Black Pudding in 3.5 has an AC of 1. You could hit it with a roll of 3 and a -2 penalty. If it charges, it takes a -2 penalty to AC for a round - its AC becomes -1. You could hit it with a roll of 3 and a -4 penalty... but you'd still miss on a natural 1.

-Hyp.