Search results

So when the target is invisible, can you use a standard action perception to beat DC stealth, not stealth+10? That would be consistent with your interpretation, but I think if that was the intent, it would say that. Also it nerfs real invisibility. I interpret the stuff on p. 281 to be...

If they beat your stealth with an active perception, you are no longer hidden from them. I understand the rules on p. 281 say you must beat the score by 10, but that is for a case when something other than stealth is hiding you. This brings stealth more into balance (though all ranged...

Thanks for the responses. I think I get it better now.

And a bit of a scope shift since I have the grab experts here :) If I want to move my grabee, after succeeding on the check it says that I move myself and then pull my target along. A pull is a forced movement that brings the target one square closer. So is this legal? ..... .tmM. ..T...

This was my main question; I probably could have been clearer. Where does it say that one hand is consumed in maintaining the grab? That makes sense, but from my reading, all you have to do is stay next to the guy, spend a minor action to maintain, and succeed on subsequent escape attempts...

So let's say you successfully grab someone. Now what? In what ways are you limited if you want to maintain the grab?

If that works for you , go for it. :) I would be worried that even taking the time to take the difference in stealth and perception would be more work than just rolling. So I would guess that having a flat penalty, or maybe a low and a high penalty (e.g. -2 and -5) would streamline things...

PHB p. 281 at the bottom of the page. It's poor editing that this is not mentioned in the skill description. Since this is in the context of searching for unseen opponents, other uses of active perception require a standard action.

I meant to write about that but forgot. With my +5 example a -2 penalty is about right. But if the stealther is +7 versus the opponent, it doesn't balance out. However, you might find it's close enough. If you want to use passive checks to save time, then it would be quite impractical to...

(Because graphs are fun :) and this was similar to what I did for the Improved Init vs. Danger Sense discussion...) (EDIT: I don't know why message board is distorting my image. If you view the image directly it will be much clearer.) Mathematically there is a difference when rolling against...

You can actually do this as a minor action (PHB p. 281). It's a special perception check for detecting unseen creatures. Other uses of active perception require a standard action.

The rules are very clear on what ends stealth: attacking or shouting. Why would you say that only moving allows you to keep stealth past your action? Your ruling sounds like the norm is that you lose stealth at the end of the action with the exception being movement. Rather it should be that...

Hiding your actions is more in the domain of the thievery (sleight of hand). Stealth as written is about hiding you, not your action. Though I agree that a DM can apply skills in ways not expressly written. Perhaps opening a door quietly so the person in the room doesn't notice would be a...

Residuum is people!

In google search for: site:enworld.org fighter "plate armor"

Milo, I think you've got the right idea, and thank you for the illustration. Our debate was particularly over whether the cover granted in your scenarios would allow you to attempt a stealth check to hide. E.g. could R hide from K and L? In the end I had to agree with Harr and Surgoshan that...

That sounds like a reasonable interpretation.

TYPO: On page 276 in the PHB under the Valenae example, it says the encounter power of a thundering longsword does 10 damage, when it should be 1d8 (p. 236).

Well, the part under "Creatures and Cover" is not the only place it is mentioned. It's also under "Determining Cover". That was my quote. And it quite explicitly states that enemies create cover for your attacks. But I will back off my earlier claim. It's quite clear that my quote must be...

That's what I thought. But is that how the rules describe it? Bull rush allows you to do a push (p. 287). You can't push a creature into a square that it couldn't walk into (p. 286). So, presumably the converse is true: if an ally can walk into it, he can be forced into it. A creature can...