Noticing the hidden

[JDillard]

So, now that we've had a chance to see the new stealth rules, I've seen some confusion about what sort of action it takes to notice someone who's hidden in combat.

A lot of people have been saying it's a Standard action, as per the Perception rules on pg. 186. However, this appears to only apply to actively searching for objects or secrets. Here's why:

On page 281 under "Targeting What You Can't See", it specifically says that "On your turn you can make an active perception check as a minor action, comparing the result to the concealed creature's last stealth check. If you win, you know the direction to the creature's location, or its exact location if if you beat it by 10 or more." (emphasis mine)

This has not been contradicted by any other errata or change that I've found. It is specific to targetting hidden things with an attack, so has its own rules in the combat section, rather than under Perception, it appears.

I've seen the "Standard action" answer quite a few times now, and just thought I'd mention this. Hopefully this helps, I have a feeling people are just getting cross-reference problems and didn't notice the combat part.

 

[Kordeth]

So, now that we've had a chance to see the new stealth rules, I've seen some confusion about what sort of action it takes to notice someone who's hidden in combat.

A lot of people have been saying it's a Standard action, as per the Perception rules on pg. 186. However, this appears to only apply to actively searching for objects or secrets. Here's why:

On page 281 under "Targeting What You Can't See", it specifically says that "On your turn you can make an active perception check as a minor action, comparing the result to the concealed creature's last stealth check. If you win, you know the direction to the creature's location, or its exact location if if you beat it by 10 or more." (emphasis mine)

This has not been contradicted by any other errata or change that I've found. It is specific to targetting hidden things with an attack, so has its own rules in the combat section, rather than under Perception, it appears.

I've seen the "Standard action" answer quite a few times now, and just thought I'd mention this. Hopefully this helps, I have a feeling people are just getting cross-reference problems and didn't notice the combat part.

It's a minor action to get a general idea where an unseen creature is. It's a standard action to actually spot it.

 

[JDillard]

It's a minor action to get a general idea where an unseen creature is. It's a standard action to actually spot it.

From re-reading both sections I would disagree. It looks like a case of "specific overrules general". Otherwise, you end up with the weird case of:

-standard action perception check with no penalty allows you to "spot" the monster, but says nothing about then being able to target it.

-minor action perception check with -10 penalty allows you to target the monster's location without any mention of being able to see it.

 

[Kordeth]

From re-reading both sections I would disagree. It looks like a case of "specific overrules general". Otherwise, you end up with the weird case of:

-standard action perception check with no penalty allows you to "spot" the monster, but says nothing about then being able to target it.

-minor action perception check with -10 penalty allows you to target the monster's location without any mention of being able to see it.

I don't really see the problem. The standard action is obviously a closer, more diligent search, and if you beat the Stealth check, you actually see the target. Why would that need to mention being able to target it? You now have line of sight to the target, ergo as long as you have line of effect, you can smack it. Assuming the target is hiding in a concealed square, you've now also dropped its total concealment (from being unseen) to regular concealment. The downside, of course, is that you've used your standard action.

A minor action Perception check is a quicker, more cursory scan. You're not going to actually see the guy, because you aren't looking hard enough, but if you beat his check by 10 or more you know which 5-foot-by-5-foot area he's hiding in. He still has total concealment because you still don't see him. The upside is that you haven't used up your standard action, so you can probably attack his square (or make a fairly informed guess) in the same round.

Seems balanced and consistent to me.

 

[JDillard]

I can see what you're saying, but I'm still unsure. -10 penalty is huge, particularly being a contested roll in which the enemy is most likely the same level. If the stealther and perceiver have the same bonuses, an 11+ on the stealth roll means the perceiver loses, all the time.

So I can take a standard action with no penalty, or a minor action in which 50% of the time I have no chance of success at all, and the other 50% I have to hope I roll very high and my opponent rolls very low. That doesn't sound like a choice at all.

And that, makes me think that they are handled as two separate issues rather than the same issue handled in two different ways. You'll notice that in the targetting the hidden section there's no mention of being able to take a standard action to notice the monster.

I think it's a case of combat perception vs non-combat perception, and that they're two entirely different systems.

 

[Kordeth]

I can see what you're saying, but I'm still unsure. -10 penalty is huge, particularly being a contested roll in which the enemy is most likely the same level. If the stealther and perceiver have the same bonuses, an 11+ on the stealth roll means the perceiver loses, all the time.

Where are you getting this -10 penalty? If you win by 10 or more, yu know the exact square the target is in. If you win by less than ten, you know distance and direction, which is at least enough to make an educated guess. If you have area attacks especially, distance and direction is probably all you need.

So I can take a standard action with no penalty, or a minor action in which 50% of the time I have no chance of success at all, and the other 50% I have to hope I roll very high and my opponent rolls very low. That doesn't sound like a choice at all.

You missed the part where beating the Stealth check by 9 or less still gives you the distance and general direction to the hidden enemy, didn't you?

And that, makes me think that they are handled as two separate issues rather than the same issue handled in two different ways. You'll notice that in the targetting the hidden section there's no mention of being able to take a standard action to notice the monster.

That's because the primary focus of the Targeting What You Can't See sidebar is focused on things you literally cannot see. The target is invisible or you're blind or you're in total darkness. Personally, I'm still inclined to allow both actions against any foe you cannot see. Not having to use your standard action is a huge benefit that more than justifies the added difficulty IMHO.

I think it's a case of combat perception vs non-combat perception, and that they're two entirely different systems.[/QUOTE]

 

[JDillard]

Where are you getting this -10 penalty? If you win by 10 or more, yu know the exact square the target is in. If you win by less than ten, you know distance and direction, which is at least enough to make an educated guess. If you have area attacks especially, distance and direction is probably all you need.

In the case of an area attack, yes, that has some value. I suppose I should have stated that I was focused more on the other case... that of a non-aoe attacking creature trying to attack a stealthed creature. In which case, you need to know the exact location.

You missed the part where beating the Stealth check by 9 or less still gives you the distance and general direction to the hidden enemy, didn't you?

I didn't at all. I was however, glossing over the fact that this only is relevant in the case of creatures with an aoe power.

That's because the primary focus of the Targeting What You Can't See sidebar is focused on things you literally cannot see. The target is invisible or you're blind or you're in total darkness.

Which is exactly why I brought this up. As per the new stealth clarification, characters who have succeed on a stealth check that beats your passive perception are "silent and invisible" to the enemy. Targeting what you Can't see isn't just about invisible, it's about any and all stealth.

Personally, I'm still inclined to allow both actions against any foe you cannot see. Not having to use your standard action is a huge benefit that more than justifies the added difficulty IMHO.

It's a gray area. I can see where you'd be inclined to do that. I'm not so sure myself however.