It's pretty much there, but ambiguous enough to be a little dodgy. The fact that the action required for an active Perception check differs between pages 186 and 281 could be taken to imply that the minor-action Perception check is not a normal one, and is thus subject to the restrictions on page 281, even though we're not dealing with an invisible creature.
Now, disregarding whether it's actually said in the PHB or not, would it not be entirely logical to assume that the rules for Attacking Unseen apply to those times when you know roughly in what square an opponent is, but can't actually see him.
The minor action Perception would take up less time than the "normal" standard action Perception check: For the minor action, you already know where to look, more or less. The standard action Perception check is for those moments when you look for hidden enemies about.
It's sort of a:
"He's somewhere behind those bushes." vs "He must be around here somewhere." (minor vs standard)
I find this entire discussion reasonably intriguing, and slightly surprised that people are a lot less inclined to follow their own common sense rather than taking printed rules and staying convinced they should be followed to however you believe they should be interpreted.
To a person against whom you are hidden: The enemy cannot see you. For all intents and purposes, you are invisible in regard to that creature.
A Sneak Attack occurs when the rogue is able to target vital areas of the target's body because the target is not actively defending them.
In combat, participants are assumed to guard those areas against foes they are aware of, or at least those in sight.
A rogue that attacks a fighter from behind (and from cover) would have attracted some attention from the fighter. Assuming this fighter turns around to face the rogue, he'd guard himself against the square in front of him and the two squares next to that. The rogue could resume hiding by moving through the concealment/cover with a stealth check, and assuming the rogue is able to more or less lap around the fighter without it noticing, another Sneak Attack would be called for.
Truth be told, I'd houserule a Perception bonus if the target attempts to hide while being observed, but that's not strictly necessary.
I suppose it'd be subjugated to some GM insight, but if a target knows roughly what square to expect an attack from (aforementioned possibilities of hiding behind a tree/pillar and sneak attacking every round with range, as well as the cover from an ally and a ranged sneak attack), that's not going to happen.
I would most likely say that common sense would dictate that any enemy who is
aware of your approximate location would not be subject to your sneak attacks. Of course, 'approximate location' is something that can be interpreted freely, but consider that this is also highly dependant on range.
'Approximate location' can be the square in front of you or one the square to the left or right it, or one of the squares in the 5 squares long underbrush that's 5 squares away.
Yes, the exact rules on stealth and such *could* be very complicated. But I hardly think any game designer would assume that everything about his game would be completely understood by the gamers, mostly because some rules are unspoken or unwritten. The rules are a powerful basis for a game, but I don't think any of the rules should take precedence over common sense, if applicable.
Discussion about topics where insight and opinion play great parts, such as this one, is never going to get resolved. Rules from books have been quoted. That's about as far as you're going to get. The rest is speculation and throwing opinions against one another. (I've never been one to ignore a good and healthy debate, so I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Experience seems to point out, though, that such discussions are often long-lasting and without any conclusion)
Let's face it: Most people are going to either use the rules as written or use some house rules to handle stealth. And those rules will be different from person to person. Until WotC comes with any sort of official errata or additions to how this is to be handled, that's how it's going to be.
The rules say you can become hidden from view and/or become unheard/unnoticed if you use Stealth during whatever action you perform. If this involves concealment or cover, you could become hidden and become entitled to Combat Advantage against the target, as long as you keep the concealment or cover advantage right up until your attack.
Those are the rules. There's no disputing it. Whether they are entirely *logical* or *clear*, that's more or less the issue here. And when it comes to that, conclusions about the how, what, when and where will probably not be reached until WotC or some person from the DnD R&D team comes forward with an official errata, addition or statement or whatnot clarifying these things. already I'm starting to see this discussion go in circles...which isn't really helping anyone, right?
