Move 6 then move 2 and hide without penalty?

[FreeTheSlaves]

As the title say.

Got a player pull this doozy

His character used a move action to move 6, then another move action to move 2, and hid as part of the second move. Does he suffer the -5 penalty to stealth or not?

 

[Pistonrage]

He's moved more than 2 squares in the turn, he takes the -5 penalty.

I'm not looking at my book... but I also think that he can't make a hide check as part of movement(the second move action) I'm fairly certain the check itself is a standard action.

BIG EDIT! OK, double checked the compendium... it can be done at the end of move actions... and a close reading of the "current" stealth rules leads me to believe that it he wouldn't take the -5 because it was a different action. But that grates on my sensibility... I'd still charge him the -5 penalty.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Page 152 of the Rules Compendium states that the minus to stealth applies to the action in which you take it... so the OP's player is fine.

 

[DracoSuave]

As the title say.

Got a player pull this doozy

His character used a move action to move 6, then another move action to move 2, and hid as part of the second move. Does he suffer the -5 penalty to stealth or not?

Verrrry good question.

The answer, RAW, is kinda complicated.

Opposed Check: Stealth vs. passive Perception. If multiple enemies are present, your Stealth check is opposed by each enemy’s passive Perception check. If you move more than 2 squares during the move action, you take a –5 penalty to the Stealth check. If you run, the penalty is –10.

The entry that is in the PHB is pretty much the first 4e errata ever, so can't go by that--the current version mentions that the penalty occurs based on that action's movement.

So... if that second action involves more than 2 squares of movement, then you get the penalty.

In your example, you have a player 'move' 6 then 'move' 2. But one thing I want to clear up is that there is no such thing as a 'move' as an action you can take. 'Move' is a general term, there are specific terms for each action. The accurate term for that move is 'walk.'

This is actually important.

Let's say you run 6 and then walk 2. During the action you stealthed on, you moved 2 squares only, so do not get the penalty to your roll.
Another example: You walked 6, and then shifted 2 (using a power, or you just get a bonus to shifts). Again, you don't get the penalty to your roll.

But what happens if you walk 6, then walk 2? Well, you're taking the same move action twice in a row, which transforms them into a single double move. That means on that action you stealthed with, you've moved 8 and therefore cannot stealth.

However... and this is where it gets more complicated... this only occurs if you do both moves in a row. If you walk 6, reload your crossbow, then walk 2, you've broken the two move actions up with a minor action, thusly you are -not- taking a double move, and you can stealth without penalty.

tl;dr:

If you're taking two different move actions, or a minor action between those two move actions, you do not get the penalty. If you take the same move action twice in a row, you do get the penalty.

Personally tho... as a DM I'd probably just make my own decision on it and damn this highly technical corner case rules interpretation.

 

[FireLance]

For me, the two most important clauses would be: "You can make a Stealth check against an enemy only if you have superior cover or total concealment against the enemy or if you're outside the enemy's line of sight." (Becoming Hidden) and "If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don't remain hidden from that enemy." (Remaining Hidden: Keep Out of Sight).

Assuming the PC starts in a square from which he has superior cover or total concealment against the enemy, and moves to another location with a move 6 and a move 2, I would check as follows:

1. Does he have superior cover or total concealment against the enemy at the start of his move 6? Does he have at least cover or concealment against the enemy during every point of his move 6? If the answer to either of these questions is "No", then he cannot remain hidden from the enemy at the end of his move 6, and the enemy would be aware of his location at the end of his move 6.

2. Similarly, is the PC either already hidden, or does he have superior cover or total concealment against the enemy at the start of his move 2? Does he have at least cover or concealment against the enemy during every point of his move 2? If the answer to either of these questions is "No", then he cannot remain hidden from the enemy at the end of his move 2.

It could be that the PC starts in a position in which he has superior cover or total concealment against the enemy, but only has cover or concealment for the rest of his move 6 and move 2. In this case, he has to make a successful Stealth check for his move 6 (at a -5 penalty) or he will not be hidden at the end of that move. If he is not hidden at the end of his move 6, he can no longer try to become hidden because he no longer has superior cover or total concealment at the start of his move 2. However, if he does manage to become hidden, he can attempt a second Stealth check (without penalty) to remain hidden at the end of his move 2.

Alternatively the PC could start in a position in which he has superior cover or total concealment against the enemy, and can also move into a position where he has superior cover or total concealment against the enemy at the end of his move 6. In this case, if he fails to make a successful Stealth check at the end of his move 6, he can still attempt to become hidden at the end of his move 2, but the enemy will know where he ended his move 6 and may take this information into account on its turn, e.g. centering an Area burst 2 power on the PC's last known location.

As a slight variant on the above, the PC could start in a position where he cannot become hidden, but moves 6 into a position from which he can because he now has superior cover or total concealment against the enemy. I would allow the PC to make a Stealth check for his move 2 without penalty in this case, but as with the above, the enemy will definitely know where the PC ended his move 6.

 

[Pistonrage]

If you're taking two different move actions, or a minor action between those two move actions, you do not get the penalty. If you take the same move action twice in a row, you do get the penalty.

And is there any reason that you can't just "waste" the minor action to split the action up? seems like the "double move" action was made just to stick it too people stealthing... and they left a huge gap to completely undo it. though there are cases where people may need that minor action for other things....


stupid stealth and corner cases...

 

[DracoSuave]

And is there any reason that you can't just "waste" the minor action to split the action up?

Actions have to be spent to do things.

Personally, I'd just say 'screw it' cause it's a stupid corner case. If I want stealth in that game to involve little movement, I'd count total movement for the turn anyways as a houserule; if I want stealth in that game to count only that action, I'd treat the double move as two distinct moves.

I can see the case for both in terms of what makes consistant sense... and it's better to just avoid the whole debacle in the first place.

 

[eamon]

Banning stealth in a double move is a fairly dubious reading anyhow. The double move text is clearly written to convey the fact that this is essentially a reintrepretation. Its presented as the obvious interpretation likely for simplicity and since its always advantageous - it's presented as a beneficial tweak, not a limiting requirement: "To double move, you have to take the same move action twice in a row on the same turn." Even in a computer program that might matter; in English text, it clearly does.

Summary: Per RAW your are not required to double move when taking two consecutive move actions because:

• The text does not clearly state that requirement
• The consequences of doing so are clearly intended to be an administrative benefit rather than a weird limitation

 

[DracoSuave]

Summary: Per RAW your are not required to double move when taking two consecutive move actions because:

The text does not clearly state that requirement

"If you take the same move action twice in a row—two walks, two runs, two shifts, two crawls—you’re taking a double move."

It's pretty cut and dry. If you are doing A, you are doing B. Not a lot of wiggleroom there.

The consequences of doing so are clearly intended to be an administrative benefit rather than a weird limitation

I don't disagree with this.

I'm not arguing what the rules are intended to be, or even what I wish they were. I'm arguing what the rules -are-, then advising your DM ignores it and does whatever he wants anyways.

Different things are different.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Thanks guys.

For the case in question I'll rule the rogue has made a dash to cover and skillfully slunk around the pillar (without penalty).

No need to stub the players toe over a trifle.